In times of war journalists are often placed in a situation where they have to report on sensitive information - information that readers and viewers are sometimes concerned about. Reporting on things such as troop movements or military tactics or local areas that may be terrorist targets for reprisal can bring confused or angry calls and emails from people who worry you are threatening their safety, or the safety of troops.

As we've gone around the country talking with other journalists about this issue, CCJ has collected their thoughts and feelings on this issue and articulated an action statement:

When confronting something that you anticipate will be controversial or confusing to a significant number of people, explain in your stories why the information serves the public interest.

Do so right in the story. Make it part of the "so what" paragraph which should appear up high in the story.

You can even acknowledge that this information might strike some people as controversial or perhaps unpatriotic if made public. But here is why you disagree and consider it important.

Consider what Ted Koppel did on Nightline October 17, 2001, during a show in which bio-terrorism experts said some pretty frightening things about who was behind the anthrax attacks at the Capitol. He began the show this way:

"Most of this broadcast tonight will focus on the dangers of biowarfare. But to anticipate some of your questions and complaints as we air some of these terribly troubling issues, let me ask you to briefly consider a world in which we essentially shut down our own information gathering process. …In most countries of the world the…government decides what is in the national interest and the media disseminate that information.

You may find yourselves wondering tonight…whether that might not be a safer, a more reassuring environment. But be careful what you wish for. Americans are accustomed to knowing what is going on in their world and bad news is a necessary part of that. It is how we analyze our problems, how we find solutions, but above all, it is also how our public officials often are held accountable."

The opening is striking in that Koppel anticipated the audience response and tried to create a context before the show even began so that the audience might be more willing to at least give what his guests had to say a fair hearing.

In print, it is possible, probably even easier, to do the same thing.

Some may find this a little radical. They may think it will interrupt story flow or the reader's train of thought. Some may wonder where such a thing will end. If you explain this, do you explain every choice you make in a story? And some may think it amounts to wimping out. Why not let the facts speak for themselves?

As for interrupting the audience's train of thought, when you raise questions in their mind and don't answer them, you've interrupted it already. Explaining why you have chosen to run with the information you have will help them understand and focus on what you have to say, rather than leaving them to speculate on why you said it.

When it comes to how to explain yourself or where such explaining ends, does it make more sense to explain your decisions in context or to explain yourself later in a defensive editorial after you've been attacked by email, phone call or maybe in a press conference by a public official? As for when to do it and for how long, use the same judgment you do in any story decision. Use your good sense. Employ your sense of taste. Exercise news judgment.

As for wimping out, the better way to think of it is establishing a new relationship with readers in which you make them a partner in your work by trusting them with an explanation.

Here are some ways to convey your role to the public that we have come across from other journalists:

• Explain to the public, somewhere high in your story, why you believe this information, which some might worry could inform the enemy or endanger American lives, in your judgment does not jeopardize security.
• Explain what method you might have used to come to that determination.
• Do so particularly if sources have suggested that the story puts security at risk.

We believe offering this public explanation of why you think a story is not a security violation offers several benefits:

· It demonstrates that you had a discussion about security in the newsroom and with sources, and you care about this issue.

· It makes clear to the public your justification for the story's safety so citizens can understand and decide for themselves the propriety of the information.

· It offers you an internal test: if your public explanation or defense of the story is weak, or shows you did not really vet the piece, you know you have a problem.

It also can help you clarify in your own mind if you are being manipulated by your sources, or fed misinformation.