The press and media are peculiar entities. The right to free speech de facto is essentially what it means to be a journalist. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution states, 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.
In this document, the founders of our country recognized the press as a collaboration independent of government. They are the critics and analyzers of governmental action and non-action. Our freedoms and liberties ensure that we are able to keep the government limited in its powers. We are to be doubtful and skeptical of government because that is what makes this country a democracy. The presumption that our voice will be heard is key to the democratic process. I am not saying that government is wrong but I am saying that power can grow and become an unruly and uncontrollable evil. Limiting government limits the potential of any one group having an excess of power. We call this federalism and under which the separation of powers within the government was based. The press is our method of scanning all that government does and letting the people know how and why their government is acting or not acting. The press is our insider on that which we control. We are the shareholders in this business, the United States of America. The executive officers are the White House and Congress while the media acts as the board of directors. In this way we, as citizens, run this country. If an executive or director does something we don’t like, we first hear about it from the other directors and then take action in the form of a vote to decide what should be done. Now that I’ve reiterated the base of our democratic process… the topic of discussion follows as such.
Being independent of government, what "rights" are specific or should be specific to the press and media? From the perspective of a reporter, they need sources and access in order to obtain their information. The sources may want to remain anonymous or in secret. To the rest of the world the source is supposed to be nothing more than a wayward voice speaking from the darkness. If a journalist reports on criminalities in say government, does the source who "leaked" pertinent information or who acted criminally as a result of government deserve to be held accountable? I am not too sure on this subject. It is difficult to rationalize out a fair answer. If "sources" had no protection they would have no reason to go to media unless they were willing to turn themselves in which in most cases is not the case. These people want to protect their job and family and life. "Sources" who quit going to the media would restrict the flow of information between government and its citizens. The independent voice of the media would no longer exist because it would have no substance to report on. The reporters would no longer have a job. Now this leads me to my next point, that the government needs to have regulations on taking press to court for acquisition of their content.
The journalist would not want to reveal there source because that would break the entire realm of source protection, sources would no longer talk to the press, and reporters/journalists would lose their jobs. Losing there jobs means eliminating the independent criticisms towards government which defines democracy and our country as a whole. The sector which helps us citizens to keep the government in check would be no more. What now is to keep the government from deceiving the citizens? How are we to know which statements from government to believe, which studies to trust, which laws are "good" for us? However, a case which requires the testimony or identity of a source as relevant evidence to a judicial trial is required to present ALL evidence to the courts no matter the severity of submitting such evidence. This exact principle is exercised in the prosecution of Josh Wolfe, a California journalist, who has served 6 months so far in jail for his refusal to submit his video footage of a protest as evidence in a case of civil unrest. His reasons for refusing are that if he were to willingly turn over the video it would be inviting the government to further probe into the identities of his "sources" and others in the video. We all know very well by now that if you give the government an inch, they take a MILE.
Similarly, in the Plame Affair, of which the investigation into the leaked name of an undercover CIA operative, resulted in many reporters being told they must hand over the names of their sources as they were pertinent witnesses to the case. Naturally most of the reporters refused, and one Ms. Judith Miller actually spent 80+ days in prison on account of "protecting her source". The case, which delved into all matters political and ethical, really meant to the reporters that if they gave up their source it would result in a breakdown of the media-government independence. Both Wolfe and Miller fought and are still fighting, Josh is stuck in prison until the proceedings of the grand jury, to keep this journalistic privilege and to protect democracy. The undeniable uniqueness and difficulty of the Plame Affair only brought more in support of each side, government and media, to the floor. Miller claimed that her source informed her that it was alright for her to give the information to the court. Other reporters however reluctantly released their information because of the pressure of jail-time. Many, many cases have involved the press getting hold of confidential information and releasing it to the public. Some that come to mind off hand are the release of the Pentagon Papers during Johnson’s presidency and the media recently releasing information regarding a confidential government wire-tap program enacted in the U.S. with intention to weed out terrorism within the country. In cases such as these the government responded to the media’s content as being unjustified and a breach of national security.
I believe in protection of sources as a testament to journalistic integrity. If a reporter is holding information that is pertinent to a trial it should only be release on grounds of without such would directly endanger lives. I believe that the more I know as a citizen of what my government is doing, especially during a time of war, is the greatest service I would be able to do for my country. I also believe that my privacy is sacred and protected within the rights of the constitution, meaning unless a court ordered warrant is provided to me no one is able to violate my privacy. Whether or not I have something to hide is not of relevance, it is the rule and making exceptions to the rule leaves room for more exceptions in the future. I will state it again, give them an inch and they take a mile.
Stay tuned for more discussion on the rights of privacy and what effect it has on business today.