Newspapers and other media organizations mostly try to keep themselves outside of the events they cover. Few things tie up a newsroom in knots more effectively than puzzling over how to cover a story about the newspaper itself, so the general rule is to avoid, where possible, doing things that will create that situation.
The public is skeptical enough about the media's credibility without giving it the further excuse of seeming to manufacture stories solely for the purpose of providing a starring role for themselves.
But the Unabomber's demand that his rambling apologia for murder be published at full length has placed a couple of the nation's most prestigious newspapers at center stage, and reinvigorated the discussion of what to do when the media become the news.
That was the topic Tuesday at a roundtable discussion convened by the Freedom Forum Pacific Coast Center at its West Coast headquarters at Jack London Square in Oakland. One participant, Jesus Mena, director of public information at UC-Berkeley, became part of the Unabomber story when a Berkeley psychology professor, Tom Tyler, received a copy of the manuscript. and began a dialogue by letter with the Unabomber, who has killed three people and injured more than 20 in a series of mail bombings over the past 16 years. Leslie Simons is a paramedic supervisor with American Medical Rescue who went to Oklahoma City after the bombing of the federal building to help rescue workers cope with their reactions to that tragedy. They joined several journalists to talk about "Covering Terrorism."
The Unabomber sent his 35,000-word manifesto to The New York Times and the Washington Post with a promise to end the killing if it were published. The papers have not complied, although they did publish brief excerpts to give the flavor of the document.
That's the right choice, in both respects. Surrendering to violence just invites more of it, and there is no reason to suggest to other unsuccessful scribblers that the proper response to a rejection slip is a mail bomb. But it's also true that readers who have followed this dramatic story reasonably want to know what ideas are worth murdering for.
While the Times and the Post pondered what to do with the responsibility handed to them along with the manuscript, other news organizations were clamoring to find themselves in the same predicament.
Mena said he got "the most horrid calls, from people I've known for years," demanding a copy of the manuscript that was sent to Tyler. Actually, it wasn't his to give. It was Tyler, not the university, who decided to go public in the San Francisco Chronicle with his open letter to the Unabomber.
Trying to get the manuscript is fine, but hassling sources is out, said Kevin Fagin, a Chronicle reporter who is covering the story.
"Before we had it, we were calling all over the country," Fagin said, "but when people said no, that should be the end of it."
The enormous publicity about the Unabomber's threat to blow up an airliner out of Los Angeles airport over the Fourth of July, and the resulting disruption of people's travel plans, is not typical of media treatment of bomb threats, which are quite common.
"We have them every mid-term," Mena said.
If the media took every threat with utmost seriousness, much of what people do every day would become impossible. In many cases, that's the purpose of the threat, and no actual violence will result if it's not publicized. Full coverage of every such incident would probably just bring about many more of them.
On the other hand, no one would want to be in the position, after people have died in a terrorist incident, of explaining why the public could have been warned, but was not. Being right hundreds of times won't excuse being wrong even once.
It became clear in the discussion that there are few simple or straightforward answers but many different perspectives.
Simons, the paramedic, raised two concerns, difficult to reconcile.
Sometimes, she said, the media just get in the way, when "you're between me and my gurney."
On the other hand, sometimes they don't get close enough to get the real story. After the Oklahoma City bombing, she said, much of the publicity went to people who arrived after the immediate crisis was over.
"The local people who were there in seconds didn't get the thanks and publicity and they were bitter when they were debriefed," she said. "It would probably have been OK if nobody got the credit."
Reporters try to get close, the reporters present told her.
"I want to talk to the rescuers who are there first," Fagin said, "and they've got it cordoned off."
Everyone wants to advance a story, said Dan Day, bureau chief for the Associated Press in San Francisco. "It's terrible when there is a breaking story and you can't get anything."
Sometimes, Mena said, other information can leak out that is not accurate because "you're not getting anything official."
Simons agreed, saying that broadcast appeals for medical personnel to come to the site right after the Oklahoma City bombing did more harm than good.
So many questions, so few definitive answers. 
"I wish there were a magic formula," Day said, "but I think that's Utopian."
How should the press respond to coercion, whether it's by terrorists or the government? Does cooperation mean the press is becoming just an arm of law enforcement? Is it careful enough about the safety of hostages and victims? How to balance aggressive journalism with the public interest? Does coverage of terrorism amplify the problem? What is the effect on the reputation of the news media?
"You guys are more critical of yourselves than I was," Simons said. I wish more of the press' critics were as understanding.