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.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.