PressEthic

On December 28, 2005 the New York Times published an article titled "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts" about the NSA domestic wiretapping program. According the an article in New York Magazine, this Times article was published regardless of direct warnings from President Bush himself that the publication of such an article would jeopardize national security. New York Magazine reports that in a meeting between President Bush and Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times:

Bush issued an emphatic warning: If they revealed the secret program to the public and there was another terrorist attack on American soil, the Paper of Record would be implicated. “The basic message,” recalls Keller, “was, ‘You’ll have blood on your hands.’ ”

In the end the article was published and brought the NSA eavesdropping program to the attention of the American people. I agree with the Times that the argument made by the Bush administration that making the NSA program public could alert terrorists that they were being monitored and potentially endanger the safety of the American public was not convincing enough to warrant stopping the story. However, this situation does address the issue of the responsibility of the press to the public. It is undoubtedly the responsibility of the press to inform the public of issues concerning violation of personal liberties. Yet, the line between journalistic integrity and social responsibility can sometimes become ensnarled.

We see this all the time in movies. The kidnapper is poised attentively in front of the television in his dilapidated hideout, hanging on every word of the helmet-haired standing in front of a crime scene area cordoned off by yellow police tape. This locally televised window into the response of the police department informs the perpetrators next moves.

Yet, the press is not a governing entity; it is not a policing entity. It is the responsibility of the press to inform. Where this information may impede upon the progress of police or government investigations, an ethical quandary could arise.

Lawrence Wright, in his talk at NYU earlier this month, stated that when researching his book "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda And The Road To 9/11", he contemplated the possibility that he may be put in contact with Osama Bin Laden. Mr. Wright addressed this issue when he said he was conflicted by his role as a journalist and as an American. Mr. Wright wondered, if that meeting ever took place, whether he should proceed with the interview of a lifetime or simply shoot Bin Laden ending the life of America's largest enemy.

I suppose that this is the sort of question would have to be answered before the situation presented itself. When making the decision to report on the news, the journalist would have to determine the role they wish to play, which identifying label they should adhere to the principles of in their work: reporter or citizen. For the most part, in revealing infringements upon civil and personal liberties, these two identities are served by the same purpose. Yet the fact remains that the intended audience is not the only audience.

The ability to distinguish between, and ultimately reconcile, what one must do to uphold the integrity of the profession and one's instinctively human reaction seems to be the mark of an intrepid journalist.