PressEthic

Three Journalists, including the editor-in-chief, from a Danish Newspaper are now on trial for publishing classified documents in 2004. The reports, leaked from the Danish Defense Intelligence Service, asserted that Iraq did not, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction under Saddam Hussein, an AP article today said.

In February and March 2004, Bjerre and Larsen wrote a series of articles based on leaked reports from the Danish Defense Intelligence Service. The reports said there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction during Saddam Hussein's rule _ one of the main reasons behind the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Prosecutors say the newspaper violated a law prohibiting media from publishing classified information that can harm national security.

Defense attorney Henrik Dahl told the court his clients had done nothing wrong "because there was a huge public interest" in the information they published.

"A conviction would be an encroachment on the freedom of speech," he told a packed courtroom.

In this case it is clear that there is a huge public interest involved. The implications of the assertions made in the articles are extremely important. Furthermore, it is should be noted that the journalists actually had access to the documents, and did not just know of them. Therefore, they had hard evidence to back up the claims they made in their series of articles.

However, it is illegal to publish confidential government documents, and the journalists involved could face up to two years in prison if convicted, the article said.

The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement in May of 2006 that offered support of the accused journalists, citing public interest as rationale for their right to publish the classified material. The statement included:

"Journalists have a duty to publish information of such obvious public interest, and should not be criminally charged for leaks from government agencies," said CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper. "We call on the state prosecutor to drop all charges against our colleagues Michael Bjerre and Jesper Larsen immediately."

Berlingske Tidende editor-in-chief Niels Lunde said the newspaper had the right to publish the classified information, and he expects his reporters to be acquitted, the state broadcaster Danmarks Radio reported.

Frank Grevil, an intelligence officer who admitted leaking the reports to Bjerre and Jesper, spent four months in prison after being convicted in November 2004.

The intelligence agent who leaked the report had to serve time for disseminating confidential information, as he arguably should have. But what of the journalists who had the public interest in mind when they published the articles? It seems that more and more often journalists are being punished for doing what seems to be the right thing: serving the greater good. Isn't this what we all aspire to? Isn't this why we all chose journalism as a career path? We want to make a difference, we want to serve the public. But these days it is a recurring theme for journalists to face harsh consequences for their service. It is a shame, because situations such as these may dissuade future journalists from acting on the public's behalf. It is discouraging to think that serving the public may mean sacrificing our own independence, and even more disconcerting to think that the government has the ability to manipulate information disseminated to the public based on their own motivations.

The International Federation of Journalists stands behind Berlingske Tidende editor-in-chief Niels Lunde and reporters Michael Bjerre and Jesper Larsen. An article on the IFJ website published at the end of April pled the case for the journalists:

The IFJ says that journalists coming upon material such as these confidential reports have a duty to publish them unless there is a very clear and increased danger to the safety and welfare of other public or private interests.

"This is one case where professional responsibility is evident and where no legal impediment to free journalism is justified," said White. The IFJ has written to European Union Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini pointing to the case as a further example how governments are using the cover of the global war on terrorism and the Iraq war to justify unacceptable restrictions on media.

According to the AP article, Aidan White, who is head of the IFJ, will appear as a witness for the defense in this case. He is expected to appear Tuesday.