E-Media Tidbits

washingtonpost.com Did today's top-billed Washington Post online head jump the gun?

Today, in the numerous U.S. news stories speculating about North Korea's as-yet-unconfirmed nuclear test, I've noticed a glaring omission: The acronym CTBTO (sometimes CTBO).

That stands for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization -- the body that runs the International Monitoring System (IMS), which is how scientists around the world keep a continuous lookout for nuclear blasts.

I learned about the CTBTO and IMS back in 2004, during a two-minute Google expedition. At the time there were widespread reports of a mysterious mushroom cloud over North Korea. (Remember that, anyone?) After hearing that report, my first question was whether scientists had indeed confirmed whether they'd observed the signature seismic, radiological, and other evidence that accompanies and identifies any nuclear blast. All I could find in the news were vague, threatened, and threatening statements, mostly from government officials -- with the exception of exemplary 2004 coverage from the New Scientist.

Given the deserved black eye many news organizations had taken over lax investigation of Bush administration claims of WMDs in Iraq years earlier, this apparently widespread reliance on government officialdom, rather than appropriate scientific bodies, bugged me enough that I wrote about it in my weblog: North Korean Blast, WMD Echoes, and Missed News Opportunities.

At the time I was amazed that I discovered which sources could give a definitive confirmation on a nuclear blast report in less than two minutes at Google, yet no mainstream news coverage I saw indicated any attempt to get comment from CTBTO (or from appropriate government contacts specifically about what they'd heard from CTBTO).

Looking at today's headlines, I'm dismayed that this particular bit of journalistic history appears to be repeating itself. So far.

Today, New Scientist correctly reports: "Scientists around the world are taking a cautious wait-and-see attitude after North Korea claimed to have successfully conducted an underground nuclear test on Monday. Only careful analysis of data returned by seismic or atmospheric sensors will determine whether the blast was a success or a damp squib, they say. Nor could they rule out the possibility of a scam, in which North Korea blew up a huge stock of conventional explosives."

In contrast, Time is reporting: "After [N. Korea warned] last week that it intended to test a nuclear weapon, it did -- defying the international community and daring it to do something in response."

Meanwhile, the New York Times clarified that N. Korea's claim had not yet been confirmed -- but this came under top-billed online NYT headline: Bush Urges Quick Action on North Korea. Similarly, washingtonpost.com's current lead story is World Leaders Condemn N. Korea's Nuclear Test.

(UPDATE, 1:46 PM MST: Several national news organizations have now started running stories, such as this AP report, about the scientific quest to verify N. Korea's claim.)

This is just my opinion, but... It seems to me that news organizations might do more to repair their dented credibility on WMD reporting by giving priority to legitimate and appropriate scientific investigation of claimed nuclear blasts, before devoting blaring headlines to political saber-rattling. Especially since it's so easy and fast to find the most crucial and appropriate sources online.

By the way, here's how you can contact the CTBTO.