Breaking Rank (62 page)

Even the nation's best newspaper is vulnerable to the hiring of a Jayson Blair. I read Blair's book,
Burning Down My Masters' House.
His tortured account of his trials at the
Times
makes crystal clear that the man should never have been hired in the first place.

Every once in a while, randomly—or not randomly in a case of suspicion—a story should be reinvestigated, top to bottom and inside out. Why? Because despite the most rigorous screening, the closest supervision, and the sterling reputations of reporters, it's possible for an individual journalist to lie and get away with it—for years. We do this with cops. “Inspection,” it's called. The news media ought to do the same.

Put every reporter on notice: We're going to check up on you from time to time. We understand how important it is that you enjoy flexibility and discretion in the reporting of newsworthy stories. But the truth is more important than your feelings. If you fabricate a story, purposely report unfairly, steal someone else's words, or violate other provisions of the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics
*
you're likely to get found out. Hopefully before you do too much damage to reputations: yours, the people you write about, and that of your news organization.

Being singed by sensational reporting caused me to lose confidence in the fourth estate. I can no longer read an article, whether on a controversial police shooting or on Moby's New York tea shop, without wondering if the reporter told the truth.

In case you're wondering, I've taken a leap of faith every time I've quoted a reporter in this and all other chapters of this book. I've tried to support my observations and assertions with more than “sole-source” reporting. But you may want to do your own fact-checking.

It's a sorry thing to lose one's innocence at sixty. But I'm optimistic. If the fourth estate will clean up its act, as it's constantly urging the police to do, then people like me can take comfort in the realization that the Jayson Blairs of the world are, in fact, an anomaly. Like Herm Wiggins and Sonny Davis.

*
Nancy McPherson, an internationally recognized expert on community policing and problem solving. I brought her in to build and run the new bureau. Her outsider/civilian status did not keep her from winning the hearts and minds of many cops, in Seattle and beyond. Detractors, however, chafed at her power and influence. They claimed that, together, we ran the department. The “Norm and Nancy Show,” they called it.

*
Contrary to the opinion of 99 percent of police officers, the press does have such a code.

CHAPTER 28

SNOOKERED IN SEATTLE: THE WTO RIOTS

I
WAS
“
OUT OF
the loop” on the decision to invite the WTO Ministerial Conference to Seattle (November 29–December 4, 1999). I'm not sure how I would have voted anyway—for all I knew, “W-T-O” were the call letters of a Cleveland radio station. I will say this, though: Having your ass kicked so completely—by protestors, politicians, the media, your own cops, colleagues from other agencies, and even a (former) friend—does give cause for pause and reflection.

Local politicians were ecstatic that Seattle had beaten out San Diego, the only other U.S. finalist for the honor of hosting the WTO Conference. Our city of 530,000, with its police department of twelve hundred cops, was
delighted
to accommodate eight thousand delegates, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, dozens of assorted other dignitaries, hundreds of reporters from throughout the world, and tens of thousands of antiglobalization protesters.

No one was more tickled than Mayor Paul Schell. He wrote in an issue of his “Schell Mail”
*
(No. 39): “As the whole event comes to a peak during the days of the actual Ministerial our streets and restaurants will be filled with people from all over the world. Issues of global significance will be addressed in our conference halls and public spaces. School teachers will use local news to teach international civics lessons. (And our many visitors will be bringing something like $11 million of business to our town.)”

Schell had that very morning met with Michael Moore (no, not
the
Michael Moore, but the secretary general of the WTO). He wrote of the meeting, “Ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand, ex-construction worker, with a background in labor, and an author, he's got a good sense of humor and a great mind. We had fun giving him a big round of ‘g-day, mate.' ” Then he turned serious: “Though there's been a lot of talk about protests and demonstrations, without question these are overblown.” Everyone (except us killjoys in law enforcement) seemed unable to curb their enthusiasm about the event. Especially the antiglobalization forces.

One city council member invited protesters from around the world to come to Seattle to join in the “dialogue.” He issued urgent public appeals to Seattleites to find room in their homes to house the hordes.

Early in '99, before pre-event speculation heated up, Ed Joiner, my Operations chief, and I walked the few blocks down to the local FBI office to learn what this WTO thing was all about from the “law enforcement perspective.” Special agent in charge “Birdie” Passanelli and her fellow feds offered a primer. The World Trade Organization was established in 1995 to “oversee rules of international trade, help trade flow smoothly, settle trade disputes between governments, and organize trade negotiations.” Simple enough, I thought. An innocuous mission with an emphasis on the bureaucratic and the diplomatic.

The WTO stood for the facilitation of
free
trade while its opponents favored
fair
trade. “Free,” “fair”—what the hell was the difference?

I boned up on the controversy. “Free trade,” I came to understand, means, essentially, the Clinton agenda—NAFTA, an opening of markets throughout North America and, beyond that, the reduction or elimination of trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas. Advocates claim that global free trade would reduce poverty, encourage greater economic and political freedom, increase corporate profits, and even enhance the environment. The most succinct free-trade argument I found, invoking Adam Smith, free enterprise, and the evils of socialism, came from Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman in “The Case for Free Trade” (
Hoover Digest,
1997, No. 4).

In the view of its legions of disparate critics, however, free trade means devastation of rain forests and other irreplaceable ecosystems; loss of small American farms, businesses, and jobs to global conglomerates, agribusiness, and foreign sweatshops; world hunger; expansion of American imperialism; exploitation of laborers and the use of child workers in Third World countries; political imprisonment; a crushing subjugation of countries like Tibet; corrupt business practices by the multinational corporations; abridgment of intellectual properties; and denial of basic human and civil rights.

The last ministerial conference, in Geneva in May 1998, had attracted thousands of demonstrators, and it had turned violent. But President Clinton, a big supporter of the WTO, offered up the United States anyway. He was probably thinking,
No problem. I mean, how long has it been since the country has seen
violent
political protest? Twenty-five years? Thirty?

Seattle had handled, since the general strike of 1919 and through the antiwar and civil rights uprisings of the sixties and seventies, an unending stream of political demonstrations. Even in the mid-nineties it was like the city was frozen in time—or, depending on your politics, ahead of its time.

Seattle
is
a progressive town, one that can always muster several hundred, or several thousand, to protest social service budget cuts or police brutality or the conditions of migrant farm workers on the other side of the Cascades. I felt privileged to live and work in a town whose people still cared enough about social justice to get off their butts and help bring it about.

We launched a regional planning effort on the heels of that FBI meeting. Joiner headed up a “Public Safety Executive Committee” consisting of ranking officials of SPD, King County Sheriffs, Seattle Fire Department, Washington State Patrol, the FBI, and the United States Secret Service. In all, twelve local, state, and federal agencies plus sixteen collateral agencies joined the planning effort.

Joiner and his group formed subcommittees to address every imaginable challenge: intelligence, venues protection, demonstration management, access accreditation, transportation and escort management, criminal investigations, communication, public information and media relations, hazardous materials (including weapons of mass destruction), fire and emergency medical services, tactics, logistics, personnel, finance, and training.