PressEthic

The UN war crimes tribunal recently issued an arrest warrant for Croatian journalist Josip Jovic. It seemed like such an insignificant story in the giant shadow of the extravaganza that was Judy Miller’s release from prison-- like the poor relative of a multi-millionaire. Nevertheless, there it was-- another journalist being sought by a court for overstepping the line.

He was one of five Croatian journalists, who were charged by the court with publishing information about a protected witness. The only difference was the other four showed up voluntarily, and pleaded not guilty —he refused to show up for his initial hearing, resulting in the court issuing an arrest warrant According to an article in the The New York Times

All five were charged this year with "knowingly and willfully" publishing the name of a protected witness, and, the indictments added, with publishing excerpts from private testimony by that witness.

The Times further stated that he had told a local radio station that the court did not have jurisdiction over his actions. His lawyer had already asked for a postponed date (which was rejected by the court) to analyze the Croatian law –he wanted to figure out if his client was even obliged to appear before the court. Jovic was quoted in the Journal of Turkish Weekly

I will appear before the County Court in Split. I expect fair treatment in compliance with the Constitutional Law on cooperation with the Hague tribunal. In case of compliance with that law I do not fear the possibility of being extradited, but I am afraid of political pressure on the court,"

The controversy, as the times article pointed out, was that the court had published the name of the witness in question, on its own site in 1997—and the journalists being indicted now, have been publishing the witnesses’ name since a few years. In light of these events the Times asked some very valid questions,

Why did the court ignore the earliest revelations of the name of the witness in two other publications? And why is the court issuing indictments now?

I share these reservations—but that still does not excuse the fact that the journalists in question were publishing the name and testimony of a witness, after the court specifically forbade it. The field of journalism has so many grey areas where journalists often step over the line, as far as the law is concerned. They tend to have the same excuse most of the time—the people have a right to know. Who gets to decide what the people have a right to know and what they don’t? At NYU journalism, professors have stressed that no matter how important the story, the law cannot be broken in pursuit of it. It is the responsibility of every journalist to use their news judgment and be ethical about what they print---because every time a journalist gets into trouble with the law, courts come down a little bit harder on the whole profession. I am waiting to see the outcome of this legal tussle to get a better understanding of these issues.