Bomb Threats 101

Background: Originally published, December 8, 2004.

     University of Oregon Journalism Professor Jim Bernstein posed the question one day in class: "If a person calls the newsroom and tells you he planted a bomb in the Hult Center, do you go on the air with the story?"
     The obvious answer to that question is "No." Crackpots and unstable people can try and use the media at any time to incite panic or to serve some type of personal self-gratification. Therefore, it's the responsibility of the news media to verify information through official sources, before running with an unfounded rumor.
     In late October, I responded to a "suspicious briefcase" that had been left inside a shopping cart inside the Talent Wal-Mart. In most instances, these types of calls end up being false alarms. But the Oregon State Police bomb squad had been called in to investigate. Police evacuated Wal-Mart as a safety precaution. Police cars and fire trucks with flashing lights were lined along the street.
     The NewsChannel received more than eight phone calls in succession, asking what was going on at Wal-Mart. In my opinion, the circumstances surrounding the suspicious briefcase begged some type of news coverage. My co-workers agreed and I was sent to the Talent Wal-Mart to provide live updates on the situation during our 6:00 and 6:30p.m. newscasts.
     While I was standing on the sidewalk next to the Talent Police Chief, one man came up and asked me if had gone on the air with this story. I replied that we had. He quizzed me further, asking if it was customary to report on stories when there was no verification that an explosive device was involved.
     I responded that it was; the litmus test for me was whether or not police responded. In this case, Talent Police had cordoned off a shopping center as a safety precaution, which had elevated it to a news story that was worth reporting.
     I began to think the man was a disgruntled Wal-Mart employee who didn't like the news media's presence. But then he identified himself as the executive producer from KDRV, channel 12, my competitor. He didn't question me further, but he abruptly left the scene, giving me the non-verbal cue that he didn't think there was a news story at this scene.
     Was I mistaken in my news judgment? Had my zeal to cover a breaking story clouded my ability discern a legitimate news story? I looked down the street. The Medford Mail-Tribune had a reporter on scene. My other television competitor, KTVL channel 10, was present. In fact, it was KTVL News Director Gordon Godfrey himself, who had picked up a camera and was on the scene taking pictures.
     I then reflected on other news shops that I'd worked in. It was standard practice at both KVAL in Eugene and KPIC in Roseburg to cover bomb threats, actual or perceived, when the OSP bomb squad was dispatched to the scene. While working at KPIC in the 1990s, I vividly remember spending an afternoon at the state government office building on Harvard Avenue in Roseburg, when the OSP remote control bomb unit was in the parking lot, investigating a suspicious vehicle.
     No, I decided that I was correct in my decision to cover the Wal-Mart evacuation, if anyone can ever be truly "correct" in the subjective decision-making process that different journalists employ. However, I learned years ago there are never any "right" decisions that please all of the people all of the time.
     Shortly after the Thurston High School shootings, gun rumors were running rampant at schools. Such a rumor surfaced one day at Roseburg High School. The rumor was widespread enough that many Roseburg students stayed home one morning. Upset television viewers wanted to know why KPIC hadn't informed parents in the morning of the "danger" at the school. That afternoon, Roseburg police finally became involved and issued statements concerning the unfounded rumors.
     KPIC picked up the story and treated it as a story on the evening news. The station then received phone calls from upset people, criticizing the news media for fanning the flames of hysteria by reporting the gun hoax. That night when I anchored the 11:00p.m. newscast, I came on the air with a brief 30-second explanation, telling people that we do not report on rumors, but we will report on threats that are investigated by the police. I received feedback from one person who criticized me for editorializing on the evening news. (I didn't know that explaining a station's news policy was "editorializing?")
     Sheesh. The news media is criticized when we don't act, and criticized when we attempt to explain why we do what we do. Needless to say, I've developed a tough skin over the years.
     Ironically, if any news station in Medford had jumped on the bomb threat bandwagon, I would have expected it to be KDRV. Their news style tends to dramatize stories: Whether it's running a breaking "crawler" sentence across the bottom of the screen, informing people of a gas leak in Central Point...even though the gas leak is confined to ONE home! Or, the time when KDRV did report on an unfounded internet rumor years ago, going on air with an alleged threat from North Medford High School students, before Medford police had any confirmation of such a threat.
     My point in sharing all of these anecdotes is to illustrate the vast array of difficult decisions that journalists face on a daily basis. Is a person leaving an unattended briefcase inside a Wal-Mart a bona fide news story? Probably not, concerning the act in itself. But does the OSP bomb squad cordoning off an area elevate it to a bona fide news story? Definitely yes, in my opinion....although at least one Medford news station apparently disagrees.
     Despite our differences in news philosophies, I appreciate the competitive nature of the news business. More choices give more people the opportunity to pick the product that best suits their preferences.