Journalists Should Stand Up for Whistleblowers
The Obama administration's ongoing crusade against government whistleblowers -- which culminated last year in the imprisonment of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling -- has reignited a debate over the role journalists should play in defending their profession and the sources and networks on which it depends
Sterling is serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term for a conviction based primarily on circumstantial evidence. This is a heavy sentence, though less than the draconian 24 years the government originally sought.
Sterling's alleged crime was divulging a botched CIA operation to New York Times journalist James Risen.
While the Times and other news organizations fought for their own—hiring a team of lawyers to defend Risen against a government subpoena—they did much less to advocate for the rights of whistleblowers or denounce Sterling's severe punishment.
The case highlights the tension among journalists about their larger role in society. Do they merely provide an objective window into the world, or should they advocate for the free flow of information and those who provide sources for their reporting?
Reporters could learn a lesson from free speech and privacy advocates. We see our work as an essential collaboration among "what," "why," and "how" people.
The "what" people are those who first identify a problem in society. They are whistleblowers, like former intelligence officer Edward Snowden, who alerted us to the alarming extent of mass government surveillance.
The "why" people investigate the roots of a problem. Journalist Glenn Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras have devoted their careers to analyzing the rise of the surveillance state. Naturally, a "what" person like Snowden would seek out Greenwald and Poitras to explain the threat of wholesale surveillance to a wider audience.
The "how" people are the advocates who work with the information and analysis to organize the public around a solution. Following Snowden's revelations, a coalition of privacy advocates -- including Access Now, the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and my organization, Free Press -- mobilized public campaigns to try to stop unchecked government spying.
Together, "what," "why," and "how" people form an ecosystem for protecting the flow of information. When one element is missing, the system falls apart.
The world of journalism is made up of "what" and "why" people. While many journalists claim objectivity as a tenet of their trade, they dismiss advocates' "how" work as beyond the realm of "serious" reporting.
This has left a perilous gap when the ecosystem is under threat.
Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index now ranks the United States 49th out of 180 countries. That's a 14-place drop since 2012," says Delphine Halgand, the group's U.S. director.
She adds that President Obama's war on whistleblowers is largely to blame. The Obama administration has prosecuted eight whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917, more than any previous administration combined."
Obama's Justice Department has used the 100-year-old law -- which was intended to go after World War I-era spies -- to convict Sterling and others. This sets a dangerous precedent, intimidates reporters and sources, and cloaks government operations from public scrutiny.
We all need to address this problem, but news organizations, in particular, should take it very seriously.
A more interconnected world has blurred the lines that once separated reporters from whistleblowers and citizen journalists. Each plays a role in a system whose survival relies on the health of its parts.
Journalists must not only defend their own rights but also ask how they can better advocate for the people who are indispensable to their work. Their jobs depend on freeing the flow of information, and so does our democracy.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Obama administration's ongoing crusade against government whistleblowers -- which culminated last year in the imprisonment of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling -- has reignited a debate over the role journalists should play in defending their profession and the sources and networks on which it depends
Sterling is serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term for a conviction based primarily on circumstantial evidence. This is a heavy sentence, though less than the draconian 24 years the government originally sought.
Sterling's alleged crime was divulging a botched CIA operation to New York Times journalist James Risen.
While the Times and other news organizations fought for their own—hiring a team of lawyers to defend Risen against a government subpoena—they did much less to advocate for the rights of whistleblowers or denounce Sterling's severe punishment.
The case highlights the tension among journalists about their larger role in society. Do they merely provide an objective window into the world, or should they advocate for the free flow of information and those who provide sources for their reporting?
Reporters could learn a lesson from free speech and privacy advocates. We see our work as an essential collaboration among "what," "why," and "how" people.
The "what" people are those who first identify a problem in society. They are whistleblowers, like former intelligence officer Edward Snowden, who alerted us to the alarming extent of mass government surveillance.
The "why" people investigate the roots of a problem. Journalist Glenn Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras have devoted their careers to analyzing the rise of the surveillance state. Naturally, a "what" person like Snowden would seek out Greenwald and Poitras to explain the threat of wholesale surveillance to a wider audience.
The "how" people are the advocates who work with the information and analysis to organize the public around a solution. Following Snowden's revelations, a coalition of privacy advocates -- including Access Now, the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and my organization, Free Press -- mobilized public campaigns to try to stop unchecked government spying.
Together, "what," "why," and "how" people form an ecosystem for protecting the flow of information. When one element is missing, the system falls apart.
The world of journalism is made up of "what" and "why" people. While many journalists claim objectivity as a tenet of their trade, they dismiss advocates' "how" work as beyond the realm of "serious" reporting.
This has left a perilous gap when the ecosystem is under threat.
Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index now ranks the United States 49th out of 180 countries. That's a 14-place drop since 2012," says Delphine Halgand, the group's U.S. director.
She adds that President Obama's war on whistleblowers is largely to blame. The Obama administration has prosecuted eight whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917, more than any previous administration combined."
Obama's Justice Department has used the 100-year-old law -- which was intended to go after World War I-era spies -- to convict Sterling and others. This sets a dangerous precedent, intimidates reporters and sources, and cloaks government operations from public scrutiny.
We all need to address this problem, but news organizations, in particular, should take it very seriously.
A more interconnected world has blurred the lines that once separated reporters from whistleblowers and citizen journalists. Each plays a role in a system whose survival relies on the health of its parts.
Journalists must not only defend their own rights but also ask how they can better advocate for the people who are indispensable to their work. Their jobs depend on freeing the flow of information, and so does our democracy.
The Obama administration's ongoing crusade against government whistleblowers -- which culminated last year in the imprisonment of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling -- has reignited a debate over the role journalists should play in defending their profession and the sources and networks on which it depends
Sterling is serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term for a conviction based primarily on circumstantial evidence. This is a heavy sentence, though less than the draconian 24 years the government originally sought.
Sterling's alleged crime was divulging a botched CIA operation to New York Times journalist James Risen.
While the Times and other news organizations fought for their own—hiring a team of lawyers to defend Risen against a government subpoena—they did much less to advocate for the rights of whistleblowers or denounce Sterling's severe punishment.
The case highlights the tension among journalists about their larger role in society. Do they merely provide an objective window into the world, or should they advocate for the free flow of information and those who provide sources for their reporting?
Reporters could learn a lesson from free speech and privacy advocates. We see our work as an essential collaboration among "what," "why," and "how" people.
The "what" people are those who first identify a problem in society. They are whistleblowers, like former intelligence officer Edward Snowden, who alerted us to the alarming extent of mass government surveillance.
The "why" people investigate the roots of a problem. Journalist Glenn Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras have devoted their careers to analyzing the rise of the surveillance state. Naturally, a "what" person like Snowden would seek out Greenwald and Poitras to explain the threat of wholesale surveillance to a wider audience.
The "how" people are the advocates who work with the information and analysis to organize the public around a solution. Following Snowden's revelations, a coalition of privacy advocates -- including Access Now, the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and my organization, Free Press -- mobilized public campaigns to try to stop unchecked government spying.
Together, "what," "why," and "how" people form an ecosystem for protecting the flow of information. When one element is missing, the system falls apart.
The world of journalism is made up of "what" and "why" people. While many journalists claim objectivity as a tenet of their trade, they dismiss advocates' "how" work as beyond the realm of "serious" reporting.
This has left a perilous gap when the ecosystem is under threat.
Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index now ranks the United States 49th out of 180 countries. That's a 14-place drop since 2012," says Delphine Halgand, the group's U.S. director.
She adds that President Obama's war on whistleblowers is largely to blame. The Obama administration has prosecuted eight whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917, more than any previous administration combined."
Obama's Justice Department has used the 100-year-old law -- which was intended to go after World War I-era spies -- to convict Sterling and others. This sets a dangerous precedent, intimidates reporters and sources, and cloaks government operations from public scrutiny.
We all need to address this problem, but news organizations, in particular, should take it very seriously.
A more interconnected world has blurred the lines that once separated reporters from whistleblowers and citizen journalists. Each plays a role in a system whose survival relies on the health of its parts.
Journalists must not only defend their own rights but also ask how they can better advocate for the people who are indispensable to their work. Their jobs depend on freeing the flow of information, and so does our democracy.