Editor's note: Richard Sambrook is professor of journalism at Cardiff University in the UK. He is a former director of global news for the BBC.
British journalism is under siege. With no settlement yet on press regulation following last year's judicial inquiry
into phone hacking, this week has seen another seminal moment. Once
again The Guardian, now clearly one of the crusading newspapers of the
world, is at the heart of matters.
The detention of the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald
by security officials at Heathrow airport in London has unleashed a
virulent debate about the place of the free press and the role of the
state. The fact that obscure terrorism legislation was cited to hold him
for nine hours and confiscate his computer equipment has added a
further twist.
In the past, police would
be required to obtain court orders that could be contested before they
could seize journalistic materials. Now the ill-defined threat of terror
seems to excuse the tactics of a despotic state.
A former editor of The Times in London, Simon Jenkins, wrote that
"harassing the family of those who have upset authority is the most
obscene form of state terrorism," adding that "the hysteria of the 'war
on terror' is now corrupting every area of democratic government."
On the other hand, the
UK's Home Office said Greenwald's partner David Miranda was carrying
"highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism," and
those who oppose his detention should think about what they are
condoning. Former Conservative member of Parliament Louise Mensch told
the BBC that Miranda's actions were endangering the lives of U.S. and
British agents.
But Miranda was released
without charge, with no suggestion he was seeking to help terrorists,
and he is taking legal action against the UK authorities for the return
of his property.
This has polarized
positions into a black and white, good or bad debate. If you support a
free press publishing leaked state secrets you are apparently condoning
terrorism. If you don't object to his detention loudly, you are
condoning the secret state. Unlike the U.S., Britain has no First
Amendment to protect the role of the free press. Like so much of the
British constitution, it is an unwritten assumption.
Reason lies in the complicated middle ground -- unfashionable as that may be.
Social media, advocacy
journalism, the need to define and claim the narrative and to be heard
leaves little room for middle ground, but it is there that this conflict
will be resolved. In that gray area, the ethical bridge between these
positions will have to be rebuilt.
As a start, we should acknowledge some plain truths.
First, journalists have
responsibilities toward the state, and governments have responsibilities
toward a free and open press. Radical transparency, which would release
anything and everything, is not what any responsible news organization,
including the Guardian, would support.
Equally, government
agencies, however shadowy, need to recognize that journalism is a
legitimate -- indeed essential -- activity in a democratic society,
especially when it is inconvenient, embarrassing or blows secrets you
would have preferred to remain hidden.
Second, if you reveal a
country's national secrets you shouldn't be surprised if its security
services take an aggressive interest in you. This doesn't mean you were
wrong to report them. Family members and loved ones should not have to
carry public responsibility for your professional actions. But when they
act as couriers for your work, they are more than family members and
loved ones -- they are your proxy and will attract as much interest from
the authorities.
Third, journalism is not
terrorism, so terrorism laws should not be used to intimidate
journalists. There is no suggestion that David Miranda was planning to
hand material to terrorists -- as the authorities well know. Governments
embarrassed by the latest rounds of whistleblowing would like to cast a
chill across investigative journalism. But it is not in the interests
of a free society to allow that to happen.
At heart, the issue is
the legitimate scope and role of intelligence and security operations in
a modern liberal democracy. As a first stab, they should be as small as
necessary -- recognizing that serious threats to Western states mean
their activities are bound to be, and need to be, of significant scale.
What matters is how
their powers are used and their accountability. It's what a country's
moral authority rests upon. U.S. and UK authorities acting against legitimate newsgathering need to reflect on what it says about their democratic values. Seizing Associated Press phone records
or intimidating the families of journalists will have some in Moscow,
Tehran, Beijing and Pyongyang rubbing their hands with glee.
Many believe the UK's
security operations' insufficient scrutiny and accountability make them
untrustworthy. Even David Anderson, Britain's independent reviewer of
terrorism legislation, is calling for a wide public and parliamentary
debate on this law.
At least that debate
seems certain to happen. And it is better that the discussion about the
state and journalism centers on a piece of public interest, serious
journalism than over the criminal antics of Rupert Murdoch's phone
hackers.
What may have started last weekend as a clumsy piece of intimidation could have far wider consequences.
Tweet Follow @punshcomempower
50% off Hosting for your Website at GoDaddy.com!
It's a BIG Deal! $5.99* .COM from GoDaddy.com!
It's a BIG Deal! $5.99* .COM from GoDaddy.com!
Host a site without stress on namecheap eApps|YOUR APP HOSTING PROVIDER
Submit your Website
Free webmaster resources including SEO Tools, Computer Glossary, Templates Sign up to BIGTIMEBUX today!
0 comments:
Post a Comment