How the media almost screwed up the Times Square bomber arrest

It's a shocking story, and brings to the fore all sorts of issues regarding freedom of the press, but also journalistic ethics. As a reporter, when do you not report something you know, something that's newsworthy, because by reporting it you'll actually be endangering people (or in this case, helping a terrorist slip away)? This is one of the topics I'll be discussing on Howie Kurtz's CNN show, Reliable Sources, Sunday morning at 11am Eastern.

From NPR:

TEMPLE-RASTON: Well, I was aware that they were surveilling the suspect. And I knew if I reported it, it could cause problems for the investigation. For example, on Monday afternoon, basically a day and a half after the attack, a news organization reported that law enforcement officials were looking for an American Pakistani of Pakistani descent from Shelton, Connecticut. And I saw that report and I was shocked when it came out. I mean I knew the information but I had decided not to report it since he hadn't been arrested.

MONTAGNE: Is it possible that Shahzad himself saw that report?

TEMPLE-RASTON: It's a great question. Yes, in fact, after he was in custody he told the arresting officers that was the moment, when he saw that report, that he knew it was only going to be a matter of time before they would all close in on him. He assumed after seeing that report that he was under surveillance. And thats a big deal because surveillance really is only effective if people don't know they're being watched.

Several law enforcement officials talked to me about this. And one in particular told me it was like watching an episode of "24' in real time. And the only problem was that Shahzad was able to see it too.

And then it even got worse. You know, reporters actually started showing up at Shahzad's house in Shelton, Connecticut, waiting for the arrest to happen. And in fact he was actually in Bridgeport, Connecticut, up the road where he'd rented a small apartment. But apparently at that location reporters started showing up because that was leaked too.

MONTAGNE: So what you're saying is if Shahzad is seeing a reporter, then the police can't be far behind and he must have known that.

TEMPLE-RASTON: Exactly. Exactly.

As an activist journalist, I've been in similar, albeit less life threatening, situations. Joe and I know a lot of people in Washington, DC, and we hear things that Democrats are doing, things that are definitely newsworthy, but if we reported on what was happening, the thing we reported on might get totally screwed up. Why is that a problem? Take gay rights for example. Joe and I know a lot of things happening on that front, in the Congress, with the administration, and with the groups, and the activists. If we were to report on an upcoming protest before it happened, the White House, for example, might find a way to stop the protesters before they arrive. Or we reported on a White House or congressional effort to get ENDA passed, or DADT repealed, before it was ready for the story to be public, our reporting could actually endanger that effort.

In this case, since we are not just journalists, but also activists, we have a stake in the outcome of the story, and therefore we sometimes choose not to report on things so that we don't screw them up. For a traditional reporter, it's not really there job to worry about legislative outcomes being influenced by their story, but when they know a story could let a terrorist get away, that's a rather big deal. So the question remains, where should the media draw the line between keeping a secret and reporting it as news?