I was listening to NPR this morning while getting ready. I don’t claim to know all the details here, but the report was titled “portrait of a potential bomber.”
An NPR reporter in Iraq interviewed an Iraqi citizen. The man refused to be photographed and wouldn’t speak into any recording devices, but did consent to an interview. The reporter was female, BTW. I just point that out because an interview of this kind must be hard to score as a male reporter and I can’t imagine how unlikely it is when you’re a woman.
Anyway, the report told of a man who refused to cut his hair until the US left Iraq. He’s college educated and around 30 years old. He was a former elite member of Sadaam’s army. But he was swayed by another army member near the time of the invasion to start devoting his time towards groups that opposed the US invasion.
What has he done? I don’t know. As I said, I don’t have ALL the details here. But the specifics in this particular case are irrelevant to the larger point I’ve been debating to myself all day.
I love the First Amendment. I believe reporters should have the freedom to report stories as they see fit. I believe reporters should have the right to protect their sources absolutely. I think the information provided by actually talking to the enemy is invaluable information for the American people to know.
But it’s also invaluable information for US security to know. Here’s a guy that’s working against US interests. He might or might not be a “potential bomber” but he undoubtedly knows people who will be and he knows of organizations recruiting them and he could be a key link to crucial intelligence in stopping a major attack.
Does it outweigh the rights I believe reporters should get under the 1st Amendment? I think so. And yet, what if these people will ONLY talk to reporters and ONLY if they know anonymity can be maintained? Now it’s the protections granted by that amendment that allow information to be obtained, information that I believe supercede the rights of the amendment and should be disclosable to US officials. It’s very confusing.
I’m not saying the government DOES have the right force a disclosure. I’m know if a reporter is embedded he or she must give up certain rights and the entire freedom that the press is granted here isn’t necessarily applicable in the field.
But my point isn’t about the government compelling, necessarily. What I’m saying is that some of the information obtained by, or granted to, reporters, is absolutely crucial intelligence that could help our armed forces. It could help save lives to disclose it. Yet not disclosing it may be the reason the reporter got the information in the first place! It’s a vicious cycle.
Your suggestion would quickly result in no body talking to reporters and closing doors to information. You are assuming everything he says is true. He could be a poser. He would have been kind of young when Saddam was in power to be a big wheel.
If you accept that we should do anything to obtain info ,then we have no rights. They are just wisps to be used or blown away. Protect your rights. Once given away they are nearly impossible to retrieve.
The subject interests me also. I found a good summary of the current state of the situation at the First Amendment Center online.
One of the basics that must be evident to every journalist and attorney, but not to my thick head was this:
Now I understand why Judith Miller wasn’t protected.
Congress has tried to remedy the problem with various Free Flow of Information Acts. According to the linked report at the FAC, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 specifies that…
I noticed at the end of this particular report by Alicia Armbruster that the First Amendment Center has added this note:
The deep sigh that you hear is mine.
Armbruster’s report also briefly summarizes Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) which was an important case concerning reporters’ privileges.
Note: The First Amendment Center (actually, there are two of them) is a real place and not just an online source. One is located on the campus at Vanderbilt University. Both were founded by John Seigenthaler, Sr. He is the gentleman whose reputation was so relentlessly trashed by Wikipedia.
And where does it stop? Should the police have these powers as well? For what - to prevent a Columbine-type attack in a school? A rumor of a possible robbery to a liquor store? Who makes the rules here?
The balancing of national security vs. confidentiality, in my view should be weighted in favor of confidentiality. It is really difficult to picture a situation where one person or a group of people can pose so grave a threat to the nation that confidentiality should be waived or denied.
Conversely it is easy to picture any number of situations where divulging the name of a source would result in damage to the career and even the life of the source. The one thing anyone who is engaged in illicit activities, such as bribery or other corrupt practices, wants to do is keep those activities secret. If reporters are required to name their sources, in many cases of public and private wrongoing there will be no sources willing to talk to reporters.
I think that your scenario assumption that not nabbing the guy you describe would result in a national disaster is highly suspect. And I think that frightening away those who would expose government or private wrongdoing poses by far the greater danger of a calamity…
i thought this thread was about the protection of the sources of columnists and other news gatherers and reporters.
Now if a CIA agent were the source of information that way up in the administration those in charge were cherry picking intelligence so as to strengthen an otherwise shakey case for a war, then I’d like to see that agent’s identity protected so as to prevent reprisal.
Shodan, it’s not Novak who is the traitor. It’s the person who uncovered her to the press that’s the traitor. Do you understand the difference? Novak, in fact, like Woodward and Bernstein, has a duty to report the news he finds.
If you are saying that a source outing a CIA agent is reason enough to attack the press to reveal the source, then you are agreeing that there are times that sources should not be protected.
If it is OK to force the press to reveal the source of the Plame leak, then it is OK to force the press to reveal contact information of a terrorist interview.
