There are two sides to this argument, both of which I can understand, but both of which pose a giant threat to either the freedom of speech or to regional (or even national) security.
First, I can see how NSA would be concerned about sources giving false or extremely confidential information and then not being able to identify them. If sources are published anonymously and they make ridiculous or false claims that may be believed by the general public, there is definitely reason for concern - especially when it's a matter of security.
Say for example that a large newspaper publishes a story about what is located in Area 51 or where to find confidential government documents. If the reporter that is responsible for the story refuses to identify those sources, no one can be punished or investigated for revealing confidential information. Public knowledge of these issues could lead to upheaval and/or threats to national/regional security.
On the other hand, there is no way to consider journalism true journalism if it is tainted by restrictions and demands from the government. This would take us back to the times of prior restraint, when the government would censor all or part of newspapers and publications for approval. We, as a country, and as journalists, have worked very hard to remove this barrier and the last thing we'd want to do is relapse into that time - where true journalism didn't really exist.
Journalism, at least to me, is about digging, investigating and getting the story accurate - no matter how controversial or ridiculous it may seem. If it's the truth - journalists want to deliver that news. Sometimes, this means that sources want to be anonymous for fear of being scrutinized and attacked.
If journalists are forced to reveal the identities of their anonymous sources, will we move back to the times of prior restraint and limited journalism?
Check out the article and decide for yourself:
NSA POSES DIRECT THREAT TO JOURNALISM
Say for example that a large newspaper publishes a story about what is located in Area 51 or where to find confidential government documents. If the reporter that is responsible for the story refuses to identify those sources, no one can be punished or investigated for revealing confidential information. Public knowledge of these issues could lead to upheaval and/or threats to national/regional security.
On the other hand, there is no way to consider journalism true journalism if it is tainted by restrictions and demands from the government. This would take us back to the times of prior restraint, when the government would censor all or part of newspapers and publications for approval. We, as a country, and as journalists, have worked very hard to remove this barrier and the last thing we'd want to do is relapse into that time - where true journalism didn't really exist.
Journalism, at least to me, is about digging, investigating and getting the story accurate - no matter how controversial or ridiculous it may seem. If it's the truth - journalists want to deliver that news. Sometimes, this means that sources want to be anonymous for fear of being scrutinized and attacked.
If journalists are forced to reveal the identities of their anonymous sources, will we move back to the times of prior restraint and limited journalism?
Check out the article and decide for yourself:
NSA POSES DIRECT THREAT TO JOURNALISM
The NSA seems to have their hands in everything these days... or perhaps they always have and it's just recently being brought to light. Regardless, I completely agree with you. If journalists are not allowed to keep the anonymity of their interviewees then the entire system will take a hit. Individuals will be much less likely to provide details or confessions if they know that their anonymity is not protected.
ReplyDeleteIt's up to us, the American people, to take a stand and let them know that these types of things are not okay.