Jones writes about the complicated history of the First Amendment in chapter three. While he says America's press freedoms have often, if not always, been curtailed in wartime, what dangers--if any--do you see in the limitations placed on the current Freedom of Information Act (restricting information that can be printed about the government or the Patriot Act)? If the Taliban or Islamic extremists threaten us--and they do--should government have the right to restrict (classify) information or otherwise control ("embedding" journalists, holding secret meetings, denying what is true) what journalists can know in order to inform us?
Also, how aware do you think people are today about Watergate and the newspaper that forced a president's resignation? This might have a bearing on how you answer the above question.
Hm. Watergate. I'm not a student of history, but I don't think people who weren't alive when Watergate happened probably have little background knowledge of it. The reporting was so damning, Nixon resigned because he knew impeachment was inevitable. The reporting had a significant impact on this, making Nixon the only president to resign the office.
ReplyDeleteWith the issue of terrorism, it's a very fine, blurry line. If the government knows the Taliban is hiding operatives in northern Afghanistan and are assembling a covert operation to capture them, reporting in a newspaper may thwart the mission and keep those Talibani on the loose. It could jeopardize the lives of American troops and civilians in the surrounding area.
The issue with the First Amendment, and something Jones doesn't really address, is that there are two facets of law: the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is obvious, the spirit is a question of doing what is moral.
In the above hypothetical scenario, should reporters have the letter-of-the-law right to publish this information? As a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, legally, they do. Congress willfully obstructing the information is unconstitutional.
However, the spirit of the First Amendment assumes that those who enjoy the rights of free speech will do so in a responsible manner (i.e., just because I can say something doesn't necessarily mean I should). Just because newspapers have the right to report something doesn't mean they can't sit on it.
And the problem is that we often either get so wrapped up in either the letter side ("I have right to call you a doo-doo head!") or the spirit side ("You can't say x because it hurts feelings") we create legal challenges and unnecessary confusion over something that's pretty clear.
Honestly, I learned about Watergate through watching a program on the History Channel. Otherwise, I had no prior knowledge of it and still am kind of fuzzy on what exactly happened at the time. Like Amy points out, people who were around during the Nixon era undoubtedly have a much greater understanding of the scandal itself.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Amy's comments when it comes to the "issue of terrorism". I'm reminded of the phrase "loose lips sink ships", which I think dates back to World War II. By publishing military information before anything happens, it's entirely possible that the mission will be ruined and lives could be lost. I think it's valid that journalists remain in the dark about certain topics, especially if it involves potentially endangering people.
I can understand the government wanting to restrict what gets published to an extent, but in another way, I feel as though it looks somewhat suspicious that they get to so closely monitor what is being released. Some people may perceive it as a government conspiracy, that they're trying to keep issues quiet that might portray people in a negative light. It also probably makes people wonder what exactly they're hiding.
I think what it boils down to (for me at least) is how much do people trust the government. If you're not a big fan of politicians, you might see restrictions on what topics journalists can cover as being a very big problem. If you're okay with people in power in the government, then you might assume they're simply doing it to protect the country and therefore won't take issue with it. Politicians have the stigma of being untrustworthy and shady individuals, which makes the average person not want to trust their judgment of what's being published.
You can see where the blurring comes in. The government (whether we trust it or not) has a much easier job when it can work secretly. (Nobody complains, nobody votes them out.) The journalist, however, has the obligation of watching what the government is doing so the public can vote the government in or out. It's a free society.
ReplyDeleteJournalists never printed pictures of F.D.R. in his wheelchair when he was president because it would have made him look weak. Everyone knew he'd had polio and could not walk. After his negotiations at Yalta with Britain and the Soviet Union--in which a lot of Europe was given away--journalists believed they'd made a mistake. The president was a very sick man at this point and perhaps should not have been voted a fourth term in office.
More recently, at the beginning of the Bush administration an energy summit between the government and oil industry was held. Journalists tried very hard to find out what was said, but no information was ever released by the government. It was classified. Apparently, we had no right to know. Why do we still not know? Might this not have concerned us, partcularly considering the War with Iraq was on the horizon? What happened to First Amendment rights there? Should we be suspicious or trusting of government as journalists?
I am willing to admit that I have very little understanding of what happened with Watergate due to the fact that I was not alive when it actually occurred, and the fact that in my US History class in high school, we only covered up through Bay of Pigs. Either way, if President Nixon hadn't done anything wrong, he wouldn't have been caught. This is the heart of the issue for both government and journalists. While we can't control what others do and what lines they do or don't cross, we can control what we, as journalists, say/do/write. If we live morally, and attempt to do the moral things which we believe are best for all involved, we've done our part. However, since not everyone has the same moral code, we have a problem. This is when the idea of a written code of ethics which has enforcement would perhaps lead to journalists doing "the right thing." So, essentially we live in a tenuous space between too much openness and too much classified. Also, journalists have sway over the American public (I suppose the global public as well) and as a result, ought to behave in a way that reflects that. American society needs a government that people believe in, and unfortunately, with too much suspicion raised about government, the journalists end up creating a disenchanted and skeptical public.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but remember that "journalist" is a slippery term and can include (at least to the public) people with agendas who just masquerade under the term. Reporters report and must verify. Politicians, I think, also raise suspicion of the government by slamming each other and not treating the truth very kindly. They, too, turn off the electorate and actually pay, as advertisers, to do it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people today are aware of the incidents surrounding the Watergate scandal or have a generalized idea. All the President’s Men focused on the scandal in great depth, and even the movies Forest Gump and The 70’s touched on the incident. Granted, the movies give a distorted view of what happened, and excludes much of Nixon’s reasoning and point of view, but at least it informs the younger generation. Some may get inspired to open up a history book or search newspaper archives to find out more information, but most will not bother. For many, the past is the past and only useful if kept in the past. Even though the incident remains in the media, all will eventually forget the newspaper that printed the initial story that led to Nixon‘s resignation.
ReplyDeleteNow on to the question posted. I feel government can cover up some information (it will get leaked out anyway), but not at the risk of American civilian lives. If they have information of another 9/11 or a “weapon of mass destruction” (a real one this time and not just the one Bush imagined), then the press should release the information to the public. We have the right to know if something beyond our control threatens our life or those of our family, friends, or associates. I do not ask for “absolute freedom,“ as Jones states, for “absolute freedom would mean a license to publish military secrets, to libel anyone, or to invade anyone’s privacy” (71). Even though I do not insist that the government or press tell me everything about the war, I do want a clear picture as to what has or will happen, and how this will affect societies and nations in general and as a whole.
History repeats itself and if not informed, the younger generation will repeat the same mistakes. I propose that high school history books contain more accurate information and newspaper clippings. Even study the impact of social and digital media on politics and the government.
Watergate. I learned about this through a program on PBS (and through history class in school, of course). I believe that it remains a large part of history classes (at any level) because, like Amy said, it was so damning for Nixon.
ReplyDeleteAs far as press restrictions during wartime go, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, but I think I may sit somewhere near the white picket fence in the middle. While matters of national security are, quite obviously, of the utmost importance and that something leaked in the press could be harmful, I also believe that we, as citizens of the US, have the right to know what's going on.
The First Amendment legally gives journalists the right to keep us informed by publishing happenings from well, wherever. But, because they can, the government will continue to censor that information or keep it from society altogether. It's frustrating, really, because we have a right to that information under the Constitution (just as the press has the right to give it to us), but the government will continue to keep us in the dark concerning certain things, whether they be matters of national security or just a piece of information that casts them in a bad light. It's sad.
From a purely personal point of view, I think the restriction of information prevents private citizens from taking actions to safeguard themselves. After 9/11 it was reported that the government withheld information to the extent that the events of 9/11 were not really a surprise to those who were privy to information about our nation’s security.
ReplyDeleteIf the public had known about threats to airport security, maybe the public could have demanded that US airports institute some of the more stringent safety measures that airports in other countries have implemented.
While I don’t think any nation should reveal all their secrets; but, on the other hand, some secrets should be told. There needs to be some type of balance, but where the tipping point is and how it can be kept level, I don’t know.
----------------------
In reference to Watergate, and considering the event which spurred Watergate occurred close to 40 years ago, I don’t think many people are aware of it, and to an even lesser extent, know the role that investigative journalism had on former President Nixon’s resignation. For example, I was eight years when this happened, and through hearing about it in the media, I have always been vaguely familiar with the term Watergate. However, until reading ‘Losing the News’, I was not aware of the back story—the investigative efforts of journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Donna, in terms of journalists being trusting or suspicious of government, I don't the question has an either or answer. A more effective approach for a journalist, I think, is to, yes, trust the government, but also maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. That healthy dose of skepticism is what will spur a reporter to dig deeper when the information presented warrants further investigation.
ReplyDelete