|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 31 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Press Freedom on the precipice by Lucien Rajakarunanayake In two days United States citizens will vote for their next president. The US presidential election is one event that determines the fate of not just one country but also of much of the rest of the world. It's really astounding how one office can have so much power over the lives of so many - power that can be used as the winner chooses: to make a difference for good or worse, more likely the latter, in people's lives the world over. Amidst all these worries about the outcome of the November 2 poll, the US and international media have been particularly concerned at the growing threats to Media Freedom under the Bush administration. The threats are to a media which, with misplaced patriotism after 9/11, when the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander-in-chief. A few months ago The New York Times and The Washington Post apologised to their readers for not reporting all of what they knew about the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the realities of the war in Iraq. They and other news organisations began self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They asked, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down. Tyranny As Paul Krugman, the well-known New York Times columnist explained: "Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations. If the Bush administration knowing the weaknesses of the mainstream media played the press like a fiddle, the same docile Press is now under threat from the same administration. The actual threat to media freedom in the Land of the First Amendment, is seen by in the alarm raised by The New York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) over a U.S. federal judge ordering two journalists to jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity. It referred to Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordering The New York Times reporter Judith Miller and the "Time" magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to jail until they agree to testify about their sources in a case involving what is believed to be a CIA manoeuvred leak. Both could be imprisoned for up to 18 months. The judge also ordered Time magazine to start paying a daily fine of $1,000 for refusing to turn over documentation requested by prosecutors under a subpoena in the same case. Both jail sentences and the fine against "Time" have been stayed pending an appeal. Balancing act What alarms those concerned with media freedom is Judge Hogan's observation that the prosecutors' requests that journalists name their confidential sources before the grand jury was "not an assault on the First Amendment," arguing that the prosecutors' demands were "appropriate" in terms of balancing "freedom of the press and the need for criminal prosecution." The judge also recognised that by refusing to disclose their confidential sources, Miller and Cooper have been "acting professionally in good faith, but refusing to obey an order of the court," he added, "places them in contempt." These developments have caused so much concern among the US media that The New York Times of October 10, 2004 carried a special joint comment titled "The Promise of the First Amendment" by Arthur O. Sulzberger jr., chairman and publisher, and Russell T. Lewis, chief executive, of The New York Times. The comment on the sentencing to prison of Judy Miller of the NYT said: "Her crime was doing her job as the founders of this nation intended. Here's what happened and why it should concern you". Describing the background to the case, that of Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist exposing the wife of a former US career diplomat Joseph C Wilson, Valerie Palme as an "operative on weapons of mass destruction" for the CIA. This followed an article by the diplomat, a former charge d'affaires in Baghdad, which said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The article served to undercut the Bush administration's claims surrounding Saddam Hussein's nuclear capacity. Because the government officials who revealed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA, operative to the press might have committed a crime in doing so; the Justice Department opened a federal criminal investigation to find whoever was responsible, which has now led to the sentencing of these two journalists. The special comment by the chairman & publisher and the chief executive of the NYT said: "During the course of this investigation, the details of which have been kept secret, several journalists have been subpoenaed to provide information about the source of the leak and threatened with jail if they failed to comply". To the question "Why does all of this matter?" they say: "The possibility of being forced to leave one's family and sent to jail simply for doing your job is an appalling prospect for any journalist - indeed, any citizen. But as concerned as we are with our colleague's loss of liberty, there are even bigger issues at stake for us all". The fourth estate "The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of information - particularly information about the government - are cut off. Yes, the press is far from perfect. "We are human and make mistakes. But, the authors of our Constitution and its First Amendment understood all of that and for good reason prescribed that journalists should function as a "fourth estate." As Justice Potter Stewart put it, the primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee of a free press was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches." The comment further states: "An essential tool that the press must have if it is to perform its job is the ability to gather and receive information in confidence from those who would face reprisals for bringing important information about our government into the light of day for all of us to examine. Without an enforceable promise of confidentiality, sources would quickly dry up and the press would be left largely with only official government pronouncements to report." The chairman and publisher and chief executive of the NYT add: "Perhaps it is a function of the age we live in or perhaps it is something more insidious, but the incidence of reporters being threatened with jail by the federal government is on the rise". Government officials "To reverse this trend, to give meaning to the guarantees of the First Amendment and to thereby strengthen our democracy, it is now time for Congress.....to enact a federal shield law for journalists. Without one, reporters like Judy Miller may be imprisoned. More important, the public will be in the dark about the actions of its elected and appointed government officials. That is not what our nation's founders had in mind." On October 16, 2004, following the sentencing of the "Time" correspondent Thomas Hogan also for refusing to disclose his sources, the NYT had a further editorial comment titled: "Press Freedom on the Precipice". It said: "A prosecutor's investigation into an apparent attempt by the Bush administration to punish a political opponent by revealing classified information has veered terribly off course. It threatens grievous harm to freedom of the press and the vital protection it provides against government misconduct. "The danger was reinforced again on Wednesday, when Judge Thomas Hogan ordered a prison sentence for a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, in the same case.....The specter of reporters' being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment and the essential role of a free press in a democracy," "Judge Hogan has ruled that a reporter's privilege does not exist in a grand jury setting. He also said the prosecutor had met the standards that courts generally apply before ordering a reporter to disclose confidential sources.....No matter how journalists' privileges are calibrated, Supreme Court precedent protects them from harassment and heedless prosecutorial fishing expeditions like this one", the NYT said. Party affiliations It is clear that media freedom is under considerable threat in the US today. Once politicians get used to harassing or threatening it, they tend to continue in that manner irrespective of party affiliations. If George W. Bush wins a second term, press freedom in the US will be in grave danger, with his ability to stack the Supreme Court with his chosen conservative extremists. If Kerry wins, with hardly a disagreement with Bush Jr. about policy on Israel, he could also find it convenient to keep the press on a leash. It is ironic that the country which seeks to export democracy to all parts of the world is having a presidential election where polls fraud is widely discussed, and that the press is under treat in the land of the First Amendment. US citizens will soon have to wake up to the threats that democracy faces at home, before seeking to export the current US version of it to other societies and cultures. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
