“Attorney General Michael Mukasey and three other top Bush administration officials are weighing in against legislation that would allow reporters to protect the identities of confidential sources who provide sensitive, sometimes embarrassing information about the government.” (CNN article)
One of the foundations of journalism is the confidentiality of sources. And with the administration weighing in on a bill that would specifically safe guard that foundation, we move one step closer to another loss of Constitutional freedoms for the sake of perceived national security needs.
If we allow the growing trend of “contempt of court” punishments for journalists who refuse to divulge confidential sources, we put at stake the very foundation of a free and unfettered press intended to investigate, and inform the public.
To note just of a few of the most dramatic modern examples of reporters breaking stories with confidential sources that may not have been broken otherwise: David Halberstam's critical reporting from Vietnam; publication of The Pentagon Papers; Woodward and Bernstein's revelations about the Watergate break-in; details of the Iran-Contra scandal; the existence of secret CIA interrogation centers; and the recent revelations of extralegal spying by the National Security Agency.
By not protecting the right of a journalist to protect their sources, the likelihood of anyone in government to provide information, knowing that they can easily be exposed with simple “contempt of court” decisions, seems to me, extremely reduced.
One of the arguments used in opposition to the proposed bill, “In a separate letter, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the nation would be more vulnerable to "adversaries' counterintelligence efforts to recruit" those shielded by the bill.” Is Mr Gates implying that if the shield law is passed, that it then becomes “open season” to the recruitment of journalists by foreign intelligence agencies? I think we are placing a very low perception of the patriotism of our journalists if we agree with that view.
“Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the bill would erect roadblocks to gathering information "from anyone who can claim to be a journalist, including bloggers" and Internet service providers.” This was particularly disturbing, since DHS with the enactment of the Patriot Act has been given almost carte blanc to investigate anyone deemed a possible “domestic terrorist”, which in recent disclosures have indicated that the FBI even broke those rules when performing investigations.
The more disturbing trend of the arguments by the administration against the shield law, is once again the mantra of “national security” which has been used as a bludgeon against American rights and civil liberties to facilitate broad, intrusive, and secret government actions aimed at our own nation’s citizens.
If we allow the defeat of this shield law by the administration, could we be allowing ourselves to gag the one institution that is primarily our only means of being informed of government misbehavior, and improper conduct? If journalists can not uncover corruption in government because sources won’t come forward, without the guarantee of confidentiality, how will we the people be able to watch and be informed of the actions of our government?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Freedom of the Press under attack?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree with your interpretation of the first amendment. In fact, a shield law would infringe on the right to a free press. Everyone has a right to "priveleged" information. By applying the same standard to journalists as lawyers you're creating an elite, regulated class of individuals. In other words you'd be creating a government controlled media. There are laws directly related to "whistle-blowers" but these laws apply only to government employess (like the current FAA case.) We'd be better served by expanding that law to include all people and defining the legal standards under which information of a confidential nature can be obtained in court proceedings. I do partly disagree with the reasons given by the Bush administration, but I also disagree with your arguments. It all comes down to the whole argument of you can scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, but you're still accountable for the consequences. If you have direct knowledge of a crime, there is an implicit responsibility (especially in regards to the 4th and 5th amendments) to answer truthfully in a court of law. In civil cases a completely different standard is applied. Here's an example, you have knowledge of a crime that would exonerate one person, but would require you to give up a source. The person who would have been exonerated is executed. Do you deserve to claim a first amendment right to the information or are you an accomplice? Your opinion as stated would mean you had every right to with-hold the information. In my opinion you're an accomplice and should be charged with either 2nd degree murder or 1st degree man-slaughter.
Post a Comment