The US Justice Department actions against Fox News and AP strike at the core of the White House’s credibility around the world as a defender of those who risk their lives to exercise journalistic freedoms and force accountability upon governments. It could give a black eye to central tenets of the much-admired soft power underlying US foreign policy.
Three quarters of the world’s seven billion people live in countries that might be getting richer but where freedom of expression is precarious and tough laws protect government secrets (including abuses of power) against whistle blowers, journalists and bloggers. Almost all those people look up to the US as a model for protection of the freedom of journalists to make judgment calls about when the public has a right to know stuff the government wants to hide.
In those countries, it is hard for journalists to understand the US Justice Department’s action. They regularly face the risk of being thrown in secret jails to suffer intimidation and torture because they disclosed government information stamped “confidential”. They dream of a time when they can work in the best interests of their readers without fear of being criminalized or hounded with circumstantial evidence gathered from forcible disclosure of emails. “Downright chilling” understates their surprise and apprehension.
What future can there be for them if these are the actions of a US government, led by a Nobel Peace Prize winner in whom the world’s oppressed reposed so much hope? The Committee to Protect Journalists says imprisonment of critical reporters and editors worldwide reached a record high of 232 in 2012, up from 179 a year earlier. This does not include the hundreds of journalists beaten and intimidated without being sentenced.
Turkey is the worst offender followed by Iran and China. Others in the top 10 are Eritrea, Syria, Vietnam, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia. Each uses vague anti-state laws to silence dissenting political views, including whistleblowers and investigative reporters accused of subversion because they criticized government behavior.
The Justice Department’s actions seem to have similar vagueness. When official secrets are stolen, the onus should be on the government employee who signed a confidentiality agreement as part of his job description and pay package. It is much less clear why a journalist deserves punishment or criminalization for disseminating the information after careful editorial checks.
A good reporter would be remiss if he did not seek out confidential information, including documentary proof to corroborate the facts. He/she would be foolish not to be the first to make the disclosure ahead of the competition. It would be fair sport for government investigators to ask the journalist for help to nab the leaker but his right to protect sources should be inalienable. Failing that, government authorities would act with impunity without fear of being found out, thus defeating the entire point of independent media.
President Barack Obama’s 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in anticipation of Obama’s likely contributions to diplomacy for peace, nuclear nonproliferation, an outstretched hand to Islam, and support for freedom of expression and democracy around the world. Of those, freedom of expression and the right of journalists to hold government officials accountable are the most pertinent for the daily lives of people in many countries. Now the Obama administration seems to equivocate on these principles.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama is a “strong defender of the First Amendment,” but also is “insistent that we protect our secrets, that we protect classified information.” The Department of Justice said, “leaks of classified information to the press can pose a serious risk of harm to our national security and it is important that we pursue these matters using appropriate law enforcement tools.”
Authorities in Turkey, China and Iran give similarly worded justifications in instances brought to the attention of international human rights bodies. All deny interference with the work of journalists or limits on freedom of expression, while insisting on protecting state secrets for the sake of national security.
In every country including the US, the government wants to stay in power for as long as possible. It habitually interferes with the media to avoid disclosure of dirty laundry, which is often stamped “confidential”. Risk to national security is the most used argument of prosecutors in Turkey, China and Iran to protect the regime against media revelations.
A version of this argument is being used by the US Justice Department. Perhaps American prosecutors have higher moral calling, checks and balances or ethical probity than those of lesser countries. But the people of those countries do not understand the fine print of US legalese. They perceive through the experience of their own systems and may think that US justice is no better. That kind of perception regarding journalistic freedoms gives a black mark to US soft power, making the diplomacy for which Obama got the Nobel much harder.
Fox News’ James Rosen disclosed a CIA predication that North Korea would conduct a nuclear weapons test. That happened and the CIA, which has often been wrong, was vindicated. It is hard to see how that scoop threatened US national security. More likely, the US prosecutor is trying to close the case against the leaker by holding Rosen to the fire. That is much like prosecutors in Turkey, China and Iran.
black eye image via shutterstock.com