Naming Names, or Not

The New York Times didn't name the telecom hotel in TriBeCa which is under scrutiny by New York officials, who are concerned about the generator fuel stored on site. But if you've worked in this industry for any amount of time, you know which building they mean. That fact underscores the problematic nature of these kind of media articles.

The New York Times said it wasn't disclosing the address of any of the telecom hotels at the request of city officials, who cited "their potential as terrorist targets." I suppose The Times can say it's being prudent - that so long as a street address isn't mentioned, the building's location remains a secret.

I'm afraid that genie is already out of the bottle. Virtually every major carrier hotel is identified within the industry by its street address. If one has any Internet research skills, these buildings are not invisible.

Telecom veterans are used to speculation about terrorism. Many building owners and managers are understandably reluctant to discuss security or draw attention to themselves. And yet, in a distressed industry, landlords must continue to market their facilities to fill space vacated by tenant bankruptcies and lease rejections.

To be sure, carrier hotel landlords and tenants must be accountable to existing building codes and guidelines. If willy-nilly growth at a particular building has led to improvised solutions that don't adhere to code, public officials can and should seek corrective measures.

But as The Times acknowledges in its story, the tank positioning in the carrier hotel in question may be perfectly legal. The story - which identified an entire class of buildings as potential terrorist targets - wound up on the front page before anyone found out for sure.

Was this article driven by legitimate concern by public officials about terrorists' motives? Would the presence of generator fuel in these buildings have been an attraction to terrorists if they hadn’t read about it on the front page of the New York Times?

Consider another possibility – that the terrorism issue has been used to pump up a local controversy and gain traction for other long-standing complaints. The city’s inquiry seems to be driven by neighborhood groups unhappy about the noise from generators and air conditioners at the building. The resulting inspection provided a springboard for The Times’ story.

Terrorism needs to be taken seriously. Examining potential vulnerabilities is part of the process, but should be conducted responsibly. Any public discussion of terrorism and carrier hotels involves both challenge and risk. In this case, the New York Times hasn’t quite risen to the challenge. Let’s hope it has not amplified the risk.