But Is It News? the New York Times and the International Freedom Center1

CSJ- 09- 0022.0PO • • But Is It News? The New York Times and the International Freedom Center1 On June 7, 2005, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed—an opinion piece— blasting the proposed International Freedom Center (IFC), a museum to be established alongside a memorial at the site of the World Trade Center.2 The op-ed’s author was Debra Burlingame, whose brother had piloted the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Her piece characterized the IFC as an expression of liberal propaganda that would dishonor victims by lumping them with victims of slavery, Nazism, Soviet gulags, and so forth. In her view, this detracted from the memory of 9/11 and injected politics into the memorial because it implied that the attacks were merely part of a larger picture of global and historic repression—sometimes by Americans. Burlingame, a board member of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, claimed that the people behind the IFC were a “Who''s Who of the human rights, Guantanamo-obsessed world.”3 To the extent that the IFC had caused controversy prior to June 7, it had played out in private. But Burlingame’s article triggered a charged, public debate. Here was a cable-news-ready battle in the so-called culture war over what constituted patriotism. Conservatives seized on Burlingame’s charges, citing the IFC as an egregious example of an anti-Americanism prevalent, in their view, since the 2001 terrorist attack. A conservative blogger formed a website, Take Back the Memorial, that began collecting signatures for a petition urging government officials to pull the plug on the IFC. Jeff Jarvis—a widely read blogger and self-described liberal who had survived the attacks on the World Trade Center—joined the anti-IFC campaign, enhancing its credibility. In response, IFC President Richard Tofel wrote a June 9 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.4 Tofel argued that the IFC would bring “a universal ‘narrative of hope’ to a place 1 This case was written from secondary sources. All thoughts attributed to those quoted come from their own writings or can be imputed from those writings. The case is an educational tool, intended as a vehicle for classroom discussion. 2 Debra Burlingame, “The Great Ground Zero Heist,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2005, p. A14. For full text of the op-ed, see Appendix 1. 3 Debra Burlingame, “The Great Ground Zero Heist.” 4 Richard Tofel, “A Fitting Place at Ground Zero,” Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2005, p. A16. For full text of the oped, see Appendix 2. This case was written by David Mizner for the Knight Case Studies Initiative, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University. The faculty sponsor was Professor Alisa Solomon. Funding was provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (09/2009) But is it News? _________________________________________________________CSJ-09-0022.0PO where hope is imperative.” The IFC will not, he wrote, “tell people what to think, but… get them to think—and to act in the service of freedom as they see it. And it will always do so in a manner respectful of the victims of September 11.” Tofel also made two appearances on the right-leaning Fox News. A New York City-centered controversy, the story was a natural fit for the New York Post, a tabloid with a conservative editorial page. On June 9, the Post wrote a news story about Burlingame’s op-ed with the headline, “WTC Shrine ‘Hijack’—Sister of Tragic Sept 11 Pilot Calls Site Museum a ‘Blame U.S.’ Mess.” Newsday also covered the story in its June 10 news pages, pegging it to the comments of Congressman Peter King (R- NY), who had come out against the IFC after reading Burlingame’s piece. The emerging controversy posed a dilemma for the New York Times—arguably the country’s most influential newspaper, one that prided itself on being “the paper of record,” a non-sensational, mainstream publication. The question: Was it news? Burlingame clearly had an agenda—to stir opposition to the IFC on ideological grounds. Should the Times become party to the fracas she had created? Burlingame’s opposition to the IFC was not in itself news. The Times did not typically write about opinions expressed in other publications. Furthermore, it was far from clear whether many, let alone most, of the tens of thousands of 9/11 family members and survivors shared Burlingame’s views. But was the intensive debate she had sparked in itself newsworthy? As a Memorial Foundation board member, Burlingame was a legitimate player in the wider discussion over what to build at Ground Zero. As editors at the Times decided whether to cover the story, they also considered how to cover it. The paper could write a “he said/she said” story that represented the competing arguments. That was what both the Post and Newsday had done. Or it could assess the validity of arguments on either side. This approach, however, threatened to enmesh the paper in a cultural battle that was perhaps better left alone. By engaging, would the Times be playing into Burlingame’s hands, giving her publicity and letting her shape the public conversation? The IFC Burlingame’s piece in the Wall Street Journal surprised even her allies. Until that point, their concerns, expressed privately to the IFC’s organizers, had focused on its prominence. The IFC was a museum, part of a complex that would also include a memorial and another museum focused exclusively on September 11. The memorial would be underground and occupy 100,000 square feet. The aboveground cultural complex—housing the IFC as well as the Drawing Center (an art gallery)—would take up 250,000 square feet. Opponents feared that the IFC would pull attention, visitors, and fundraising dollars away from the memorial and the related museum. (They were not the only people with concerns about its size. Envisioned by planner Daniel Libeskind as both a gateway to the memorial and a buffer against the nearby office towers, the complex would, said some critics, block both light and the view.) 2 But is it News? _________________________________________________________CSJ-09-0022.0PO While the form the memorial would take had for years attracted intense public debate, the IFC itself had generated little opposition. It was the brainchild of Thomas Bernstein, a businessman who had made millions investing in movies. He was also co-founder of the Chelsea Piers sports and entertainment complex in Manhattan; board president of Human Rights First—a non-profit human rights advocacy group focused on refugees and civil liberties based in New York and Washington; and an executive committee member of the US Holocaust Museum. He and President George W. Bush had at one time co-owned the Texas Rangers professional baseball team, and remained friends. He had raised at least $100,000 for Bush’s presidential campaign, and spent the night at the White House. Bernstein conceived the idea for the IFC in late 2001. He envisioned it as a celebration and exploration of freedom, focused on the perpetual human struggle for freedom throughout history and around the globe. He was not sure what the IFC would contain, but tentative ideas included “a gallery devoted to the world’s sympathetic response to the attacks, an exhibition on freedom-related political documents like the Declaration of Independence, and a salute to freedom fighters around the world.”5 New York Governor George Pataki and Lou Thomson, then-head of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) created to govern development at Ground Zero, approved Bernstein’s concept (which he pitched with his partner, Peter Kunhardt, co- creator of the PBS series Freedom: A History of Us). To sit on the IFC board of directors, Bernstein recruited an ideologically diverse group that included former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, Holocaust Museum Director Sara Bloomfield, and Richard Norton Smith, who had headed the libraries of various Republican presidents. Bernstein also assembled planning and advisory committees stocked with dozens of academics, activists, writers, and political figures. The committees included both liberals like Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and conservatives like John Raisian, director of the Hoover Institution. Over the next couple of years, planning for the IFC proceeded, but details were few. In July 2004, the New York Times published an article with the headline, “Freedom Center Is Still a Somewhat Vague Notion.”6 It quoted Bernstein, who said, “We’re still a work in progress. We’ve got a strong concept, a strong team, and a lot of work to do.” The IFC, he added, would focus on “different parts of the world transitioning from tyranny to freedom.” The article cited one possible exhibit where “visitors would walk through prison cells representing those that housed Susan B. Anthony, Mother Jones, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, and Natan Sharansky.” What little opposition there was came from the left. Whether because of Bernstein’s relationship with President Bush, or because of the generic, pro-freedom rhetoric of the IFC planners, some feared that it would convey a flag-waving, U.S.-first message. 5 Robert Kolker, “The Grief Police,” New York Magazine, November 20, 2005. 6 Robin Pogrebin, “Freedom Center is Still a Somewhat Vague Notion,” New York Times, July 24, 2004, p. E1. 3 But is it News? _________________________________________________________CSJ-09-0022.0PO Dawn Peterson, an NYU grad student whose brother was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center, worried that the IFC “would trace the familiar liberal progression of American exceptionalism.”7 The July 2004 Times piece noted that Bernstein sought to reassure critics on the left by saying that the IFC wasn’t, in the Times’s words, “an arm of the Bush administration or a place of pro-American propaganda.” In October 2004, the board named Richard Tofel, a lawyer and former Dow Jones executive, as IFC president.

Load more