As a student in the practice of journalism I believe the occupation of a journalist, in any capacity, is not one to be taken lightly. Journalists are charged with collecting, synthesising and disseminating information on behalf of the rest of the population, and hence have significant power. With this power comes a responsibility to use it for the good of society.
Earlier this month, Radio 3AW host Derryn Hinch
revealed on air what he believed to be the location of notorious sex offender Brian Keith "Baldy" Jones after his release. This resulted in the house coming under repeated attacks by vigilantes, even though the location was incorrect. Hinch has come under attack from
some who believe he should not have broadcasted the location, regardless of its accuracy; but in reality, Hinch was obligated to make the residents of the street in question aware of a released paedophile in their midst.
A similar case is explored in a May 15th article by Orson Scott Card as part of his column in The Onery American. Card's article is a conservative diatribe resulting from Newsweek's allegation that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet as part of interrogation tactics against Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the following riots and death in Muslim nations. He too argues the article should have been printed, regardless of its accuracy.
"Even if the allegations about Quran desecration were completely and absolutely verified, why in the world would you publish the information during wartime?"
"But they dwell so blindly within the cocoon of their sheltered world, where it's just awful for somebody to offend "multicultural" people... that it doesn't occur to them that they could just keep their mouths shut and avoid damaging America and putting Americans all over the world in danger."
Card then goes on to imply that the story was only reported because it would damage the American government, which, to him, is despised by the supposedly liberal media. Quite obviously this is partisan paranoia, but not really the issue at stake here. Card is downright wrong when he lambasts Newsweek for publishing the allegation.
In both these cases, the media was aware of information and, as their purpose dictates, made it available to the public - this is a responsibility of the media and of the journalists who comprise it. They are not responsible in any way for any unfortunate events perpetrated by people who read their stories - those people chose to commit violent acts, the responsibility is on their head, not that of the journalists.
It is said that knowledge is power, and this is certainly true. By informing the public of events, you empower them - this is what the media is all about, informing and empowering the public. If an individual is informed, he or she is empowered to make better decisions regarding his or her own life and how he or she views the world. This is a good thing and is vital to the continuing success of the human race. The Society of Professional Journalists state in the preamble to their code of ethics:
"...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues."
This cohesively states my core professional philosophy, and, in my view, clearly justifies the actions of the aforementioned. The information has to be obtained, evaluated and then handed to the public in a news story, and then opinion columnists can further examine the issues and use their insight to expose more to the public. The public has a right to know everything that could possibly be their business, and the media has a responsibility to provide that, by whatever means necessary.
In May this year, American newspaper, The Spokesman Review, had information that suggested the local mayor, Jim West, "used his public position to entice young men he met in an online chat room on a gay Web site." However, the paper wanted to be absolutely certain that the man in the chat room was indeed Mayor West, so they hired a computer expert with a background in conducting child-pornography stings to pose as an 18-year-old gay man on the chat room. The tactic was successful, and although it involved deceit, it exposed the deplorable actions of a senior political figure. After the fact there was extensive discussion over the ethical implications of such an action, with some arguing that the practice of deceit is wrong in any case, while others arguing pragmatism dictates that because the tactic was necessary to report the story, and the story was in the public interest, it's use was entirely justified. It will be no surprise to many that I fall in the second category. Dr. Denny Wilkins is a Professor of Journalism at an American university and has 20 years of newsroom experience said of the case:
"...the pragmatic journalis[t] of 20 years in me says, "How much harm can a man with great power do before he's exposed? And what is the best method for exposing him and preventing that harm?" And note, please, that the harm could be done to the most vulnerable among us -- the young.
"My first editor once told me: "If you shoot at the king, don't miss.""
The media is obligated to report the news, especially that of a highly explosive nature, at almost all costs. This is why journalists risk their lives in war zones and investigative reporting to bring home the news, and why actions like that of the Spokesman Review are sometimes necessary.
Another tactic important to journalists in informing the public is anonymous sources. As TIME Magazine editor, Norman Pearlstine, said in his May 23rd editorial:
"...sometimes we can obtain information only by promising confidentiality to a source, because many persons with important information won't speak to the press unless they are assured anonymity. Information given in confidence is especially valuable when it contradicts or undermines public positions asserted by governments or powerful individuals or corporations. Without confidential sourcing, the public would never have learned the details of many situations vital to its interests, from Watergate to Enron to Abu Ghraib."
Getting the story to the public is normally the top priority, so compromises must be made to obtain necessary information that the public has a right to know, so if this means not naming your source, so be it. Not only is a necessary tactic to not name sources, it is an obligation and a responsibility to protect sources who may be subjected to undesirable consequences if they are identified. This is the dilemma two American reporters, Matthew Cooper of TIME and Judith Miller of the New York Times, found themselves in when they were told the identity of a covert agent by government sources, now revealed to be Karl Rove and possibly some others.
Their sources committed a crime in exposing the agent's identity, but neither of the two journalists outed her - it was columnist Dan Rather who did this. Matthew Cooper then wrote an article, which said he had been told the same thing, and suggesting the unnamed government officials had indulged in misconduct and were possibly seeking to discredit the agent's husband, Joseph Wilson, who had released a report critical of the Bush administration. Judith Miller published nothing. Both were summoned to give evidence to an investigation into the incident, aimed at discovering the leaker - Miller, Cooper and TIME refused to reveal their sources.
Miller and Cooper took the admirable step of being prepared to go to jail before they would reveal their sources, and TIME also refused to surrender documents to the inquiry. In the aforementioned TIME editorial, Pearlstine defended the refusal to cooperate, concluding:
"We believe we must protect our sources when we grant them confidentiality, an obligation we take seriously. We also believe we must resist government coercion. Put simply, the issues at stake are crucial to our ability to report the news and inform the public."
Judith Miller was jailed on 6th July, and Matthew Cooper only escaped the same fate when his source granted him permission to identify him. TIME backflipped and surrendered their documents less than six weeks after the editorial.
"If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press."
"There are times when the greater good of our democracy demands an act of conscience. Judy has chosen such an act in honouring her promise of confidentiality to her sources She believes, as do we, that the free flow of information is critical to an informed citizenry."
The concern, as Miller and NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr, stated above, is that this may set a precedent that limits the ability of the media to report stories, because sources would be less likely to go to the press if they cannot be protected in situations like this. Miller and Cooper made courageous stands against this kind of repression in refusing to expose their sources.
Having personally handled half a dozen leaks from several sources, and passed them to journalists, I have never contemplated outing a source to any person - half the journalists involved do not even know the gender of my sources. If they were to be publicly identified the results would be disastrous for them, and I refuse to let that happen. I have promised them confidentiality and they will receive it.
Alas, a similar case has come to pass in Australia. Two Herald Sun reporters, Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus are also being threatened with jail for their refusal to expose their source, a public servant who leaked confidential documents detailing a questionable government policy concerning veterans' pensions. Only because of this leak was the government pressured into scrapping the policy.
This is not to say that journalists should be given a free pass to hide important information from governments, but these would be extreme cases, such as a terrorist or criminal giving a reporter exact time and location of a crime so he has a front row seat and exclusive. In this case the journalist is obligated to inform authorities so they can prevent the crime, and then to report all these events to the public. Helping an investigation by a government on a witch-hunt is not one of these times.
Journalists have fundamental responsibilities that arguably supersede the will of politicians and lawmakers, for the higher purpose of informing and empowering the public. The responsibilities must be remembered, and journalists should not be prevented from honouring them.
