Newspapers Printed Unabomber’s Manifesto in 1995. It’s Still Fiercely Debated.

Heavy Baggage, June 1995 arrived at the post office Identical Washington Post and New York Times articles: A single-spaced copy of the document entitled “Industrial Society and Its Future.” Accompanied by a note from an anonymous sender, it said that if the newspaper did not publish a manifesto, they would kill people again. Complete all within 90 days.

The danger seemed certain. The author claimed that he had already killed three people and injured dozens in mail bombing campaigns that had been going on for 17 years and were increasing in frequency. But if they succumbed to their threats, how did the newspapers know whether the bombers would keep their promises, or whether other terrorists would make such demands in the future?

In September of the same year, at the request of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the newspapers decided to publish. Due to the Post’s weekday printing capacity, it ran the manifesto as an eight-page insert to separate it from the regular news and opinion sections. The Times covered half of the Post’s expenses.

The manifesto provided an important clue to his identity, and six months and two weeks later, Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, who died in a federal prison cell on Saturday, was captured. but, many in the Profession, agree To Mr. Kaczynski’s The demands set a terrible precedent, undermining journalism’s independence and swaying law enforcement.

“They don’t know who this guy is. If he bombs again, they can’t sue him for breach of contract,” said Jane Cartley, executive director of the Free Press Commission at the time. Stated. Round-table discussion immediately after the announcement of the manifesto. “They really made a deal with the devil when they finally had no control over what he did or didn’t do.”

The American Newspaper Association found its membership evenly divided. A poll at the time showed that just half of the 200 publishers that responded said they would implement the manifesto, while the other half opposed it.

The Times and Post made it clear that this was not an easy decision. They spent almost all of their 90 days allotted to consider it, and the choice was not left up to the head of the press department. Instead, the two newspapers released a joint statement saying they believed it could save lives.

“Neither paper has a journalistic reason to run this,” said Donald E. Graham, publisher of the Post at the time. Times publisher Arthur Saltzberger Jr. agreed. “Like it or not, we end up turning the page to a man who murdered people,” he said. “But we are confident that we are making the right choice among the bad choices.”

Len Downey, who served as editor-in-chief of the Post in 1995 after Kaczynski died on Saturday, said: told the newspaper Kaczynski’s brother recognized the language and tipped him off to the FBI, which ultimately vindicated his superiors.

This is not the first time, nor the last time, that the media has addressed the question of whether it serves as a platform for material that can incite others to act harmfully or mislead the public. The temptation to publish can be strong, especially if the document has received a lot of attention and may have plausible newsworthiness.

BuzzFeed News, for example, published a document in 2017 containing explosive allegations about President Donald J. Trump, drawing traffic despite being largely discredited years later. Manifestos written by mass shooters often draw a lot of attention, but news outlets now avoid excerpting them for fear of encouraging imitation.

“I think we’re talking more about minimizing harm today, and I think that’s a good thing,” said Kathleen Culver, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

According to Dr. Culver, even in the 1990s, when murderers were on the run and newspapers might have had the power to stop them, journalism’s heated debates seemed academic to many citizens. It says. “My main memory of that time was people outside the newsroom saying, ‘Why is this a question?

At the same time, however, newspapers have been criticized for being too close to government authorities, and at times have lost the trust of their readers. For example, The Times’ poorly critical coverage in the months leading up to the Iraq War in the early 2000s. Second, the media’s failure to properly scrutinize statements by police officials following protests against the unarmed killing of black boys in Ferguson, Missouri.

John Watson, a journalism professor at American University’s School of Communications, said the newspaper should have allowed the Justice Department to buy out the manifesto’s ad space to meet Mr. Kaczynski’s demands while keeping it separate from editorial decision-making. Stated.

“Journalists should never be seen on the same side as the police,” Dr. Watson said. “Their ability to become monitors depends on the public believing that they never associate with the government and are always skeptical, even if it is clear that the government is right.”

Through a Times spokesperson, Sulzberger declined to comment at the time and declined an interview. His son, AG Saltzberger, now publisher of The Times, recently published his next book. long meditation On the meaning and value of journalistic independence. She did not respond to an email asking if she would have made the same decision as her father.