American Pie: Publish And Be Damned - Or Not?
...Counter to WikiLeaks’s behavior, we would do well to review the reporting of journalists Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post, when they investigated the Watergate affair. Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post’s Executive Editor at the time, insisted on stringent source checking and verification before publishing any of their columns, even though that risked losing the all-important scoop that eventually brought down the Nixon administration. Now that’s responsible journalism!
At a time when there is so much global instability, diplomatic relations are fragile, but never more essential. If diplomats, heads of governments and senior government officials cannot communicate freely without fear of disclosure, an dimension of international relations will be lost...
John Merchant's clear thinking on the Wikileaks controversy leads to the conclusion that it is definitely not always right to "publish and be damned'' - particularly when the "publisher'' is not a trained and experienced investigative journalist.
Recently, I was asked for my opinion about WikiLeaks, the shadowy organization ostensibly headed by Julian Assange. My questioner is a career journalist and newspaper editor, and unhesitatingly gave his view that such an organization should “Publish and be damned,” the retort first uttered by 1st Duke of Wellington on being threatened with blackmail.
The contemporary interpretation of the response now is truly rooted in journalistic mores, but as an ordinary citizen and non-journalist, I cannot come up with such an easy answer for myself. In the first place, Assange is not a journalist, though some of his adherents may be, and is a provocateur and thief at best, who will probably be indicted for sedition eventually.
Secondly, he comes across as a person who thrives on drama and mystery; a power seeker who relishes the thought that he can embarrass governments and threaten the national security of major powers, hardly the characteristics of a responsible journalist. Would any sane, responsible person threaten a “Poison Pill,” Doomsday retaliation, as Assange has done, to any attempt to close down their operation?
WikiLeaks distributed their disclosure documents to four respected newspapers without any editing, ignoring the fact that some of the documents contained information that could have harmed individuals. Fortunately, those newspapers were responsible enough to perform some redactions before publishing.
On the other hand, I value the free press as a guardian of my freedom, and am somewhat paranoid about the clandestine tricks powerful governments get up behind the scenes. Therefore I believe that legitimate investigative reporting is essential, and should be protected and supported.
Ever since the Creation of the patriot Act of 1975, I have felt less than confident that the US government has my best interests at heart. Section 215 of the Act: “Access to Records Under the Foreign Intelligence Act” allows an FBI agent to obtain a search warrant for “any tangible thing,” which can include books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes and computers with hard drives.
It does not require the agent to demonstrate either “probable cause,” the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed, or that the items sought are evidence of a crime. Since then, the Act has been fortified by the introduction of more stipulations that threaten the freedom of the individual.
Regrettably, subsequent terrorist threats have only served to dissipate public opposition to the Act, but there is very little evidence that such threats on American soil have been preempted by the new powers granted to law enforcement. Many of the cases brought to trial are clearly the result of entrapment, while other terrorist plans that failed went undetected in the planning phase.
Counter to WikiLeak’s behavior, we would do well to review the reporting of journalists Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post, when they investigated the Watergate affair. Ben Bradlee, the Washington Post’s Executive Editor at the time, insisted on stringent source checking and verification before publishing any of their columns, even though that risked losing the all-important scoop that eventually brought down the Nixon administration. Now that’s responsible journalism!
At a time when there is so much global instability, diplomatic relations are fragile, but never more essential. If diplomats, heads of governments and senior government officials cannot communicate freely without fear of disclosure, an important dimension of international relations will be lost.
But for an irresponsible, lowly private in the US Army, WikiLeaks would hardly merit a second thought. As it is, they have garnered enough support for their mischief to constitute a threat to world peace not seen since the Cold War, and have demonstrated the potential power of Cyber Warfare.
# # #
For more of John's worthwhile columns:
http://www.openwriting.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=john+merchant
And do visit his Web site
http://home.comcast.net/~jwmerchant/site/
