WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?

After a private airplane with an amateur pilot at the controls wandered into Washington airspace recently, The Washington Post reported that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had given the military his permission to shoot the plane down, and the Air Force was within 20 seconds of blowing the Cessna out of the sky when it finally turned away from the capital. It was a a fascinating story of life-or-death decisions made on the basis of little information, with no time to spare. Unfortunately, it wasn't true.

Rumsfeld denied the story the next day, saying that he had not been consulted about the incursion and hadn't gotten on the phone to anyone during the episode. Despite his denial, the Post hasn't given up on the story, insisting that it had reliable sources, even though the sources have backed off somewhat.

Most of all, the Post says that it asked the Pentagon about the story and didn't get a denial or a caution not to run with it. Nobody "waved the paper off," said its ombudsman, who has the unenviable task of defending sometimes indefensible stories.

This idea that the Pentagon is responsible for vetting stories proposed by the media and "waving off" the inaccurate ones is gaining traction. It was used by Newsweek to justify its story on military interrogators supposedly flushing the Koran down a toilet at the Gauntanamo Bay detention facility (written by someone who clearly has no familiarity with plumbing -- no book that size would fit down a toilet). The theory that the military could prevent these stories from being published is bogus on at least two grounds.

First, only rarely is the Pentagon, or anybody else, given enough time to properly check out a story. The reporter in charge usually contacts the target institution late in the day and says, I'm writing for tomorrow's paper and the following wild charge has been made . . . There simply isn't time to check it out. Since a blanket denial wouldn't be believed and, even worse, might be inaccurate, the institution will frequently pass on the opportunity to comment, giving the media the chance to say that the institution "did not deny" the story.

Secondly, and more importantly, the newspaper, magazine, TV show, or other media entity, has sole, total and complete responsibility for everything it publishes or broadcasts, and it can't dump that responsibility on whoever answers the phone at the Pentagon at five o'clock. It was up to the Washington Post to come up with persuasive evidence that Rumsfeld gave the OK for a shoot-down, and it failed to do so.

At best, it appears, the chain of command was following a standing order that any aircraft that appears to pose a threat to the White House, Capitol, or other important buildings, can be destroyed, probably on the authority of someone well below the secretary of defense. That may be news, but it is not the same as Iron Don shouting into a telephone, "Shoot the s.o.b. down!" In the post 9/11 world, it's hardly even news that the Air Force would protect the capital city with deadly force if necessary.

The term "wave-off" comes from the signal given by a Navy officer on an aircraft carrier, telling a pilot his approach isn't right and he has to try again. It's an order, not a piece of advice. The media would never take orders from the military, and the military doesn't give advice. A newspaper has to make up its own mind if its story is fit to print. Too often these days, that responsibility is being evaded.