Reporting bomb threats

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Last week's news that eight post offices in southern Minnesota received bomb threats posed an ethical dilemma for the newspaper. We first found out about the North Mankato threat through our good 'ol police logs, the ones we post on the web every day.
So we called three officials, and none would say much, barely confirming there was a threat.
Now, our typical policy is not to report bomb threats if they seem like a prank, thereby not encouraging the behavior of say, high school kids who want a day off.....So, if we hear there was a bomb threat at a high school, but school officials did not clear the whole school and call down the bomb squad we usually do not even do a brief.
However, if the bomb squad truck rolls up to a school, we believe neighbors and the public want to know what's going on. So, we usually do a brief or short story.
In the recent case, because officials were not even telling us they think it's a prank, and seemed very secretive, we decided to let people know there was a threat and no one was saying much. That may lead people to figure someone is hiding something, and possibly we lead them in the wrong direction.
However, the StarTribune apparently got a hold of the Postal Inspection Service person who called us back late Friday night, and found out eight southern Minnesota post offices were involved.
We immediately put the short StarTribune story on our web site and followed up with postal union employee to see if they could tell us something. We also found out it was a letter. This seemed like more than a prank. Someone took the time to send a letter and targeted eight local post offices.
Still, it's reasonable to ask: Were we ethical in reporting something we didn't know how serious it might be? At the same time, did our short story help people make a decision about possibly going to one of those post offices? Did it help them become more aware? Maybe they had information for authorities or saw something suspicious. In this case, we aid law enforcement.
Any thoughts?

[Dan Conner]

Last week's news that eight post offices in southern Minnesota received bomb threats posed an ethical dilemma for the newspaper. We first found out about the North Mankato threat through our good 'ol police logs, the ones we post on the web every day.
So we called three officials, and none would say much, barely confirming there was a threat.
Now, our typical policy is not to report bomb threats if they seem like a prank, thereby not encouraging the behavior of say, high school kids who want a day off.....So, if we hear there was a bomb threat at a high school, but school officials did not clear the whole school and call down the bomb squad we usually do not even do a brief.
However, if the bomb squad truck rolls up to a school, we believe neighbors and the public want to know what's going on. So, we usually do a brief or short story.
In the recent case, because officials were not even telling us they think it's a prank, and seemed very secretive, we decided to let people know there was a threat and no one was saying much. That may lead people to figure someone is hiding something, and possibly we lead them in the wrong direction.
However, the StarTribune apparently got a hold of the Postal Inspection Service person who called us back late Friday night, and found out eight southern Minnesota post offices were involved.
We immediately put the short StarTribune story on our web site and followed up with postal union employee to see if they could tell us something. We also found out it was a letter. This seemed like more than a prank. Someone took the time to send a letter and targeted eight local post offices.
Still, it's reasonable to ask: Were we ethical in reporting something we didn't know how serious it might be? At the same time, did our short story help people make a decision about possibly going to one of those post offices? Did it help them become more aware? Maybe they had information for authorities or saw something suspicious. In this case, we aid law enforcement.
Any thoughts?

Boy, for me that is a difficult to answer. You get into that gray area of the public's right to know vs. encouraging copycats. All I can say was that our office experienced a few bomb/death threats over the years. One, was severe enough that it was a US Senator's office that referred the threat to the FBI. Someone said he was going down to the office and "shed some blood."

I think papers have to responsibly report these things. Maybe leaving the intended target out. I don't know. Believe me, there are a lot of "Kooks" out there, all having twisted logic in their brains. When I was working would I have wanted the threat to be published? Probably not. I think anyone in this circumstance feels we are just encouraging more of it. Plus, like you said, it can turn into a "prankish" thing.

I believe these threats have to be dealth with more severely, if we look to deter it. It's not funny when a local law enforcement or fire department body is routinely sent on wild goose chases, taking valuable time away from protecting the public from real threats. Then, it would be nice that the many "loose cannons out there get the necessary psychiatric treatment necessary, while confined, until they are rehabilitated.

[Tony Cornish]

I guess I've always believed in releasing as much information as possible unless there was an articulable reason that it would lead to dire consequences. Overall, I suppose there have been situations when it has been abused, but not enough to outweigh the people's right to know and then have the information to make a decision about their own safety. You're better off just releasing the information. Tony Cornish

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Tony. I award you the first Law Enforcement for Free Press Award for your answer!:) Seriously, we try to work with law enforcement, but we still run into more officers than I'd like in small towns who don't think the daily log is even public, or don't see a need for them to take a step and email the list of calls the night before. IN Mankato, we get great help. They email us the pdf of calls from last night, we post on our web and the public has immediate access to police activity in their neighborhood. Public safety is enhanced in my mind when the public has information.

[Ellen Mrja]

Seems to me the only irresponsibility would have been from the officials who did not answer your questions quickly and professionally. What if there had been a true threat and your being able to post it as such on the Free Press web site could have helped to save even one life?

I find it troubling that officials in Mankato often believe they have the authority to answer questions or not, share information or not. It's not surprising that the Strib gets better cooperation; it's used to dealing with officials who understand otherwise.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Thanks Ellen. I missed your post. You raise an interesting point about sources who don't provide information in a manner they are supposed to. We very seldom say "xx official refused to provide information in a timely manner, even though we believe he is required by law and ethics to do so"....Why? because the source may hold that against us next time we try to talk to them...Believe me, sources hold grudges. So you try to balance the need to really put pressure on these folks if safety is at issue or just letting it go so they won't be angry next time you talk to them. Repeated offense, however, we try to address with their supervisor or other in control who know the law.