News & Features Feedback
New This WeekAround TownMusicFilmArtTheaterNews & FeaturesFood & DrinkAstrology
  HOME
NEW THIS WEEK
EDITORS' PICKS
LISTINGS
NEWS & FEATURES
MUSIC
FILM
ART
BOOKS
THEATER
DANCE
TELEVISION
FOOD & DRINK
ARCHIVES
LETTERS
PERSONALS
CLASSIFIEDS
ADULT
ASTROLOGY
PHOENIX FORUM DOWNLOAD MP3s



Secret finger-pointing
What did the Wall Street Journal know about Daniel Pearl, and when did it know it?
BY G. PASCAL ZACHARY

FOR WEEKS DURING the ordeal of reporter Daniel Pearl’s captivity in Pakistan — and the uncertainty about whether he was dead or alive — senior editors at the Wall Street Journal, his employer, privately debated among themselves whether they somehow had put Pearl in harm’s way. It wasn’t a debate in any general, existential sense, but a question of whether the paper’s controversial decision to hand over an Al Qaeda laptop computer to the Department of Defense and the CIA late last year had blown back on them.

Journal editors have never made public their doubts about their handling of the laptop affair, which was lost in the avalanche of concern and publicity over Pearl’s abduction. Instead, Journal editors have publicly avoided connecting Pearl’s fate with the laptop incident. Yet the Journal remains concerned that sharing a source of data with the US government may have contributed to the dangers faced by Pearl.

To be sure, the Islamic militants who seized and murdered Pearl may have chosen him at random. They may never have read the Wall Street Journal or known anything about the paper’s stance toward assisting the government in a time of war. But Journal editors worried about the part played by the paper in the minds of Pearl’s abductors, though they avoided raising the issue in their public pleas for Pearl’s release.

The Journal’s worries stemmed from a chance purchase of a laptop computer by Alan Cullison, a foreign correspondent for the paper. Cullison, who ordinarily works out of the Moscow bureau, purchased a laptop in Kabul from a computer dealer late last year when his own laptop broke. The laptop turned out to contain many Al Qaeda files on its hard drive — files describing terrorist plans and movements.

Cullison’s instinct — and that of his boss, Andrew Higgins, the Journal’s Moscow bureau chief — was to run with what seemed like a tremendous exclusive. But they were overruled by Paul Steiger, the paper’s managing editor, who decided that the government should be privy to the information some weeks prior to the Journal’s readers. At Steiger’s insistence — and over the objections of Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize winner — the Journal turned the laptop over to the Department of Defense and the CIA, ostensibly to receive help in interpreting the information. But they also did it, as the Journal’s foreign editor pointedly declared to the New York Times two days before Pearl’s abduction, to assist in the war on terrorism.

US officials later confirmed that they widely distributed the contents of the laptop files to numerous government agencies. But when the Journal published its own stories — two front-page articles — it failed to tell readers that it first shared the contents of the laptop with the government. Only when the New York Times prepared an article on this departure from standard journalistic practice did the Journal come clean. Steiger defended sharing the laptop in an interview with the Times. "In moral terms, we would have been devastated if we had withheld information that could have saved the lives of our servicemen or of civilians," he said.

What about Danny Pearl’s life? Could the laptop affair have contributed to his death? Could Al Qaeda have sought revenge on the Journal for becoming, at least in this instance, an informal arm of the government?

Andrew Higgins, who co-wrote the laptop stories with Cullison, dismisses the possibility that Al Qaeda targeted the Journal for revenge. He also says that no Journal editor ever raised the possibility that Cullison was in danger if he stayed in Afghanistan after the publication of the first article, which appeared on December 31. Higgins says the Journal neither asked Cullison to leave Afghanistan for his own safety, nor did Cullison fear for his safety.

That’s curious. Maybe he should have. One Journal correspondent, who has worked in war zones and Islamic countries, says he routinely asked the Journal to withhold articles for publication until after he left that country. In short, being out of a country when stories broke was a security precaution.

Why didn’t Cullison feel this way? Higgins says the question never came up. He says that "only after Danny was kidnapped was there any talk of reviewing Kabul staffing" — meaning, pulling reporters out of Afghanistan.

page 1  page 2 

Issue Date: March 7 - 14, 2002
Back to the News & Features table of contents.