As time goes on, certain trends and items go out of fashion: jukeboxes in the 50s, platform shoes in the 60s, Pet Rocks in the 70s. In the year 2014, the question is, “Do we still need journalist?” I believe instead of placing a higher value on journalists versus leakers, our society needs to embrace both channels for information by realizing the values both present.
So, why do we need journalists in a day and age when anyone with a smartphone is a photographer and anyone with a computer can be a blogger? As can be seen with Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, there are situations where leakers need a reliable medium to transmit their information. Daniel Ellsberg shared the Pentagon Papers with the New York Times, the Washington Post, among other print publications. Edward Snowden shared the information he gathered with the Guardian. Why couldn’t they just act alone, without the support of a news corporation? One reason is that submitting raw data to the masses may have a less significant impact than wanted. As a leaker, if you believe information you have should be known by the majority, then that information should be accessible and understandable by your target audience. This is where the need for journalists can be seen because journalists have access to the audience that leakers want to reach. Besides big news corporations making bigger ripples, journalists are also protected by the Freedom of the Press. Now, the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press apply to all people, but when whistleblowers are involved, things seem to get murky. If Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden are viewed through the lense of “press”, then there is no question that they are protected for releasing the information they had acces...
... middle of paper ...
... they are above the law, unpatriotic, and thieves. Whether or not these claims are true, what’s impactful is what they do. It’s true that Snowden is no longer in the US to avoid receiving his sentence, but what he has done here is made the Obama administration reconsider its stance on this NSA dragnet, mass surveillance. That’s why leakers are necessary: they are capable of providing insight to what’s going on behind doors; they are able to enlighten those who otherwise may not be aware.
During the period of the Vietnam War and the Pentagon Papers, Justice William Douglas stated, “Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic...Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health”. In order for our nation to thrive and the people to stay informed, both journalists and leakers must raise the veil of secrecy and help uncover the truth.
...an Assange’s “Wikileaks”. John Stuart Mill was not alone in his belief that freedom of speech would lead to the truth. According to Wikipedia, John Milton suggested that restricting speech was not necessary because “in a free and open encounter” truth would prevail, and US President Thomas Jefferson argued that it is safe to tolerate “error of opinion… where reason is left free to combat it”. We too see Fredrick Siebert claim in “Four Theories of Press” the idea of free expression as being “self-correcting”. It is safe to say that we are at our most democratic position to date with regards to journalism and our access to information in the western world, yet the future of the press remains unknown. One can only hope that the “marketplace of ideas” continues to be useful to our growth and development, and doesn’t prove to be fatal to our press and its future.
On July 6, 2005, a federal judge ordered Judith Miller, journalist for the The New York Times, to jail. Miller was involved in the exposure of Valerie Plume as a CIA operative. In questioning, Miller invoked reporter’s privilege by refusing to disclose the identity of her sources, fueling fire to a heavily debated ethical issue in the field of journalism (Pinguelo, “A Reporter’s Confidential Source…Revealed?”). Successful journalism tells the truth to a public who has the right to know it. Journalists have the responsibility to tell us a story laden with facts and the more important responsibility of revealing the source of their information, right? Not necessarily. The right of journalists to keep their sources private has been a long-standing debate. The ethics in this debate are blurry. On one hand, it may be extremely important to the issue at hand that the source of information be known, as an argument could lose credibility otherwise. On the other hand, the source has the right as an American and an individual to remain anonymous. Isn’t it enough that he or she came forward with information at all? Judith Miller’s case garnered public attention and is just one example of many instances that raise the same, consistently debated question- how far can journalists go in protecting their sources and under what circumstances does withholding the identity of a source become unethical for either party involved? The answer to this question is obscure, but solvable. Journalists should have the right to protect to identity of a source unless the information they possess is for the greater good of the public or the situation at hand.
Snowden's leaks provided the people with important information proving The NSA was and still is collecting and storing massive amounts of data on billions of innocent U.S Citizens without warrants or probable cause to help keep the people safe from foreign and domestic enemies. It is believed to be one of the biggest leaks in history of government information. Most societies already lives in constant surveillance outside of their homes. There are cameras watching people most everywhere they go. Schools, shopping malls, and the streets they walk and drive on. In a technological age while living in surveillance, getting any kind of privacy is difficult for a citizen. Privacy is what a person does while thinking that no other person but them is watching or listening, but a moment believed as private is known as an illusion. In the United States, privacy and freedom is a huge part of the people's rights being that the United States is based on Democracy which is liberty, equality and justice for all. Being monitored without knowledge to this extent leaves privacy and freedom in the dust. “In a democracy, the people are sovereign—they are the highest form of political authority” (Diamond, 2004)
The author of the Dark Days in the Newsroom, Edward Alwood, explores Cold War tension in his examination of how journalists were targeted during the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s, how some cooperated by turning over names while others resisted in an effort to defend the freedom of the press. The author shows how some journalists mounted a heroic defense of freedom of the press while others secretly enlisted in the government's anti-Communist campaign. McCarthyism in journalism became the practice of leveling accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason publicly without providing evidence or protecting civil liberties. It relied on devious methods of investigation that were designed to suppress opposition. McCarthyism’s power underlays the ability to threaten principled people and turn them into self-serving cowards. It is a shocking violation of the First Amendment protection and a disturbing expression of the government’s ability to intimidate the press. The McCarthyism era changed the journalism significantly; the impact of the Eastland hearings and subsequent court cases about freedom of the press could be traced in the Valerie Plame case in the summer of 2005.
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
Wise, David. "Leaks and the law: the prosecution of Thomas Drake highlights the tension between government secrecy and the public's right to know" Smithsonian 2011: 90. Academic OneFile. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
... Those who think that the NSA has the right to act in the way they do would tend to brand Snowden a traitor. Those against the NSA’s national security tactics find that Snowden was a hero, and consider his current circumstance a worthy sacrifice.
Smith, Lewis. "Video: Edward Snowden Tells Oxford Students That Government Secrets Undermine Democracy." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
Once again when Snowden actions are viewed from an ethical lense of moral relativism they are justified due to the importance of privacy place on the effected parties who are monitored by the NSA. The vagueness and simplistic application of moral relativism is precisely why this approach is less commonly debated. The opposite continuum of circumstances which would label Snowden a whistleblower in regards to his supportive group are the same circumstances which his non-supporters use to discredit his actions when applying the theory of
Woodward and Bernstein's undertaking constructed the cornerstone for the modern role of the media. The making of the movie about the Watergate Scandal and the ventures of the two journalists signify the importance of the media. The media’s role as intermediary is exemplified throughout the plot of the movie. The movie is the embodiment of journalism that guides future journalists to progress towards the truth, no matter what they are going up against. It was the endeavor of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that led them to the truth behind the president’s men. They showed that not even the president is able to deter the sanctity of journalism in its search of truth. The freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and people’s right to know account for the same truth that journalists pursue; the truth that democracy is alive and will persist to live on.
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
It is reasonable to argue that, governmental institutions or people with authority are subject to withhold a great deal of information from society. Many may argue that secrets are kept to ensure the safety of the nation. Thus, upholding the governmental duty of protecting the nation against possible threats. On the other hand, many believe that secrets may exist which violate our constitutional rights. Over the last year, Edward Snowden, has made headline news for leaking sensitive governmental information to the press. Edward Snowden is a 29-year-old high school drop-out, who was a tech specialist for the National Security Association. Snowden had discovered and later exposed the NSA for monitoring the nations e-mails, phone calls, and internet searches. As the allegations spread like wild fire, Edward Snowden sought asylum in Russia for one year. Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens.
Edward Snowden is considered to be a whistle blower because he did an unethical doing and decided to make an ethical decision by making the American people aware of the wrongdoings of our government. Snowden raised his right hand and sworn to abide by the constitution and uphold the constitution. After working with these agencies Snowden saw that it was not right and unconstitutional, so he decided to copy the files and release it to the American people. In order for him to protect himself he had to flee to a different country before he could actually release the information.
The first is the crisis of viability. The chance of success in the journalism in the mainstream is approaching a decline due to the transformations in technologies and new access to multiple sources of information. The second is a crisis in civic adequacy. The contributions of journalism to citizenship and democracy have begun to shift and this shift has caused a question of the relevancy of journalism to democratic processes. In a democratic society journalism plays the role of the government watchdog. The effectiveness of society’s watchdog is now being challenged and in turn alternating the structure of the current democratic society. Many critical theorists of the press during the beginning of the 20th century were concerned with finding appropriate forms of public regulation of the press and journalism to ensure that journalists are writing “news and information about public affairs which sustains and nurtures citizen information, understanding and engagement and thereby a democratic polity” (Cushion and Franklin, 2015: 75) (Dahlgren, Splichal 2016). Journalism is a political entity that influences and informs the public. It is meant to work as a source of public information that helps and does not hinder the general public specifically in political processes. The article
Much is being discovered when the public, also known as the consumers and recipients of the news, share their views on journalistic practices. One might suggest that traditional journalism has, in due course, come to an end. Although, there are definitely problems that the public runs into with public journalism taking over. A few of those arguments include their content, the journalists, and the effects that it has on their public audience.