The American press has done a fine job stoking concerns over the fact that a company from the United Arab Emirates is taking over the commercial operations of some U.S. ports. But while we’ve heard plenty about the supposed threats to American security, journalists from just about every major news organization are confusing the actual facts of the story. The generally accepted wisdom is that six ports are slated to change hands — or it was until UPI Pentagon Correspondent Pamela Hess reported on Friday that the UAE company, Dubai Ports World, is “poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.”
Indeed, if you visit the Web site of P&O Ports, the British company that ran the ports before their handover, you will find that it does indeed manage twenty-one ports in the United States. So why is everyone in the press reporting that the fuss is all about six ports?
It looks like another case of press release journalism.
A P&O spokesman told us yesterday that “P&O has operations in 21 ports, some are as minor as stevedore operations, where a crew boards a vessel and unloads ships.” And why the discrepancy between the actual and reported number? The issue, according to the spokesman, “lies in those six ports, due to security.”
So, are there security issues in the other 15 ports? “Hopefully not,” said the spokesman.
That answer wasn’t very reassuring. It also didn’t seem to quite explain the fixation on six ports, as opposed to 21. So we did what some reporter should have done two weeks ago: We called Robin Dolan, P&O’s vice president for business development.
Dolan said that the confusion could lie in the difference between “container terminals” and ports where the company performs stevedoring operations. Container terminals are found at big ports, like New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Miami, which handle international shipping, and where large amounts of cargo is unloaded and shipped out to the rest of the country. Stevedoring, Dolan explained, primarily involves “taking cargo off one ship and putting it on another ship,” and usually includes items such as rubber, plywood, and farm goods. Yet even this does not explain the discrepancy because, in fact, there are only five ports with container terminals (as opposed to the six we keep hearing about), according to Dolan, who says he’s seen quite a bit of misinformation in reports on this issue.
The most likely possibility, then, is that the incorrect reports can be sourced to a press release issued by New York Senator Hillary Clinton. As Dolan notes, the release “stated that the New York and New Jersey ports were separate, when they’re one port.”
So, in effect, reporters allowed Hillary Clinton to write an important part of their stories. That is a shame, because this is an important issue. Journalists who should know better were too busy frittering with the atmospherics to spend some time figuring out what is really at stake.

"Supposed"? Isn't that judging the case a bit prematurely, Mr. McLeary?
If you're going to claim that the incorrect reports are sourced to Senator Clinton's office, shouldn't you at least link to the press release you claim originated the number? How have you actually verified that her office is where the number originated? So many unanswered questions, but hey, it's important to get those half-truths out there.
Posted by darrelplant on Tue 28 Feb 2006 at 07:56 PM
Lou Dobbs reported that there were, arguably, 22, depending on your perspective.
I don't think that the U.S. has its ports ducks in a row well enough to do deals like this. They've misguessed WMD, they've misguessed the Iraqi "cakewalk", and now we're supposed to take their word on this deal.
No thanks.
All it takes is one terrorist to be in one of those 98% of containers that never get inspected to get shipped to any port in New Orleans/vicinity and once past there, has access to the entirety of the barge traffic along the Mississippi River clean up to Minnesota.
Posted by Clara Listensprechen on Tue 28 Feb 2006 at 10:07 PM
The earliest Clinton press release on her web site that mentions six ports is dated 17 February (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=251709&&). I quickly found an AP report from 11 February that mentions six ports (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1606661&page=1).
By the way, there is a separate P&O operation in New York City, it's just not a container operation. According to your own link, Mr. McLeary, they manage the cruise ship terminal on the Hudson. Only about 900,000 people and supplies for the ships pass through there. Not really a major operation, as you say.
Posted by darrelplant on Wed 1 Mar 2006 at 03:35 AM
So, in effect, reporters allowed Hillary Clinton to write an important part of their stories. That is a shame, because this is an important issue. Journalists who should know better were too busy frittering with the atmospherics to spend some time figuring out what is really at stake.
Is it better to let a Vice President for Business Development of a company directly involved to, "in effect," write an important part of your story? Bringing Hillary Clinton into it and blaming her for being the source of the error certainly adds to your story atmospherics, but it looks like based upon earlier comments it also added what is probably another error.
Posted by Catch22 on Wed 1 Mar 2006 at 04:03 PM
Paul, I started asking these questions on 20 February -- and I believe that I sent a note to CJR asking why y'all weren't looking into this.
Also, contrary to the spokesman's reply -- some of these other ports are essential/high volume/security risks. One sends most of our supplies to the Middle East.
AND, neither the spokesman or your review notes that Department of Homeland Security lists a different sub-set of ports from the first gang-of-six.
Finally, as I noted in my first report, it's very VERY easy to think that there are only six ... because the main P&O website shows only six (or five - it's not clear on the map if New York and New Jersey are one or two).
Contrary to the spokesman, btw, P&O does operate a facility in NY. It's five minutes from Times Square.
I've had a request into P&O for clarification since Tuesday -- but I don't do this full time. I'd given them until Friday to reply before I called.
Kathy
Posted by kathy gill on Thu 2 Mar 2006 at 10:13 PM
The conspiracy theorists are really working overtime because of a real live conspiracy to
1) Hide from the public the truth of just how many ports are involved;
2) Hide from the public that companies controlled by other foreign governments already exist, even with hostiles such as China;
3) Hide from the public eye that Israeli companies do business with the Dubai firm;
4) Hide what Zim in particular steps forward to announce as it lobbies for Dubai and sheds light on more of what's been hidden from the public for years regarding trade between Israel and Muslim companies under the subterfuge of false flags and misleading labels;
Now that all this secrecy has been revealed, it sets up Dubai in particular as being, in a Islamic radical's eyes, an instrument of not just Israel's ally, the U.S., but Israel itself, meaning that this and other Dubai corporations have a bulls-eye painted on their backs.
The U.S. is already a target of Islamic radicals. With Dubai on our shores, we're both twice the targets we used to be, separately.
Posted by Clara Listensprechen on Thu 2 Mar 2006 at 10:45 PM