Freedom of the Press: Too Much Freedom?

[muffler dragon]

I read the following article today, and I thought it brought to light an interesting consideration.

While the beginning of the article discusses covert operations, this is the meat of the matter:

Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran? - Haaretz - Israel News

Freedom of the press

In Israel, military censorship would have prevented the publication of details such as these. But in the U.S., where the principle of freedom of the press is sacred and anchored in the constitution, there is no compulsory and binding censorship. There is, however, an expectation there that the press will show responsibility. This expectation has increased in recent years, particularly with the conservative Bush administration and in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The New York Times reporters had revealed confidential material that weakened America's struggle against Al-Qaida. He calls for relinquishing the soft approach which he says the administration has taken against journalists in whose publications, in his opinion, America's security is harmed.

There are many others who take the opposite approach and believe that the right of journalists to keep their sources secret should be anchored in law. Two Congressmen, the Republican Mike Pence, and Rick Boucher, a Democrat, have proposed legislation to this effect - a law for the free flow of information. The House of Representatives has already approved their proposal but the legislation is being held up in the Senate, to the displeasure of the American Civil Liberties Union.

On the face of it, this is a sensitive issue that is intended to draw the lines between the freedom of information, freedom of the media, and the public's right to know, against the right of a democracy to defend itself against enemies that are not democratic. But James Risen has no doubt that the correct and just moral act on his part has to be to defend his sources, even if this means he will lose his freedom.

So, what are your thoughts on the degree to which there is freedom of the press when it comes to sensitive national security issues?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

First, the freedom of press does not extent to military secrets. For example, as a member of the press, I could not demand and then publish the schematics of how to make a nuclear weapon.

But.. the question becomes what's a Military secret? I mean, supposing I'm President, I could declare whatever I wanted a threat to national security, and thereby all information associated with it a secret. Thus far, and correctly in terms of function I think, the way it's been dealt with is for a Court to make an in camera inspection of the secret and determine if it is one that is worth keeping hidden from the public or one which is not. This approach is not without its problems, particularly for those among us who distrust the judiciary. (I fall in the distrust of the executive, myself).

I'm not sure there's a real solution to the problem... no bright line answer. I know that I don't think there is an absolute freedom of the press... there is a legitimate reason that some things need to be kept quiet... military operations and so on. I have no problem with that (and they become public soon enough... I don't need to know when we were starting shock and awe before the fact, I became aware of it when it happend. Good enough). I also believe that the Press is vital to keeping an eye on our Government (who our founders were inherently suspicious of when they drafted our rules, and whom I am suspicious of). But, that said, I also think a balance needs to be reached with the press to report facts.

Of course, mistakes are going to happen. So a true to life informant gave you info that was wrong... that's not what I'm talking about. But, there should be serious consequences when a journalist is caught plain making shit up. Somewhere along the way, our media has gone from "We got the story right" to "We may have had some shit wrong, but you heard it here first" and in their efforts to be first, quality went straight in to the shitter. I'll take my news a little slower so long as it's more accurate.. less speculative. I don't care who's first. I'll watch who's correct.

Anyway.... it's a hard question for me. I believe very strongly in free speech and free press... each, I think, are truly vital to our way of government. But... there are legitimate reasons that those freedoms cannot be absolute.

 

[Jake]

There is, however, an expectation there that the press will show responsibility.

Therein lies what has changed over the years. During WW2, the press could've disclosed a number of things that would've hampered our efforts, but they were responsible enough to not do it.

Unfortunately, we now have a media for whom getting the scoop, political motivation, and downright irresponsibility all too often trump concerns over what is best for our security and our troops in the field.

It's frustrating, but I don't support amending the Constitution to place limits on the press. Once that door is open, it becomes a slippery slope to state-run media. No thanks.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The military imposes press blackouts and restricts access by the press in war zones all the time. Details of impending military operations are of no use to the general public and therefore may be withheld from the press. Also note the recent restrctions on the release of injury information in sports due to new privacy laws. The public does not have to "right to know all".

 

[Taosman]

The current administration played the national press/media. It still tries to do so.
A free press is one of our greatest assets.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Bleed S & G]

The current administration played the national press/media. It still tries to do so.

Jeez Taos - ALL administrations do this.. fuck, for all we know the government is running the majority of the press..

If we stop electing jerk-offs maybe it'll change.

 

[Taosman]

No! All administrations do not play the press to the same "degree".
Do not try to tell the American people that the Whitehouse did not manipulate our national press/media to justify the Iraq War. As I pointed out in documented articles in the Political Forum. This Whitehouse has spent $100 million of your dollars for propaganda purposes.
The Iraq War has been "sanitized" for the American public with reporters only allowed in "controlled" situations. This did not happen in the Vietnam War where every night we saw the full effect of the fighting. Young Americans bleeding. Flag draped coffins being put on airplanes. Vietnamese civilian bodies. "Sanitizing" coverage is media interference. Clearly, the First Amendment Rights have been run over by a government concerned with negative publicity.