Lawrence Davidson takes a critical look at how the WikiLeaks affair will affect shield laws and the public's right to know. Will the fourth estate in America simply function as an oracle of the government/corporations?
Posterized photo of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 08/08/10. (photo: Phillip Toledano/The New Yorker)
Shield Laws, WikiLeaks and the Public's Right to Know
12 September 10
Reader Supported News | Perspective
nderneath the radar screen of the average American citizen, a legislative battle is going on for what is called a "Federal Shield Law." This is legislation that would "protect journalists from having to reveal anonymous sources when challenged by prosecutors in federal court." Actually, all but ten of the Unites States have such laws operating at the state level, but as of now there is no federal equivalent. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would establish such a law and defined the categories of cases to which it would apply, but the Senate is yet to act. Why not? The answer to that is WikiLeaks.
The WikiLeaks Affair
It will be remembered that in July 2010 WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of Defense Department documents online, along with combat videos, concerning the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was "classified" material leaked to the web site by a whistleblower within the military. The documents show that the two wars were carried on with such loose rules of engagement as to result in massive civilian casualties. Before it released the documents, WikiLeaks reviewed them as part of a "harm minimization process demanded by our source." As a result it withheld 15,000 documents. Nonetheless, as a former FBI attorney put it, the information that was released is "embarrassing, inconvenient and gets in the way of the war effort." Thus, ignoring WikiLeaks own vetting process, the Defense Department accused the website of simply dumping classified material onto the web and thereby compromising the safety of US troops and their allied informants, to say nothing of harming what is left of the US reputation in the region.
These charges are to be taken seriously for one reason only. They come from an institution that can legally retaliate in a way that could have dire consequences for WikiLeaks as well as that portion of the American public desiring to know the real consequences of policies pursued in their name. As to the substance of the charges themselves, there is much room for skepticism. The dumping charge is untrue on the face of it. WikiLeaks did vet the material and that is why 15,000 documents were withheld. We have only the Pentagon's word for the allegation that the material made public endangered anyone. And the Pentagon, whose job in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be the endangerment of everyone, is not a source to be trusted. The only charge made against WikiLeaks that everyone can agree on is that the organization embarrassed the American government.
Enter the Shield Law Effort
As all this was going on US news organizations and their journalist employees were pushing hard for the passage of a federal Shield Law. All expectations were that the Senate would pass its equivalent of the House bill this fall. It is to be noted that the bill that passed the House last year specifically exempted cases that had to do with both terrorism and national security. The presiding judge on any such case can remove the Shield Law protection. In addition, the House bill also limits protection of the Shield Law in cases having to do with classified military secrets.
Then came the WikiLeaks affair. The Senate's linking of WikiLeaks to the Shield Law seems puzzling. The website's July posting clearly falls under the national security and military secrets rubrics. So WikiLeaks would not warrant Shield Law protection under the proposed law. Nonetheless, those opposed to the bill are using the WikiLeaks affair as a focal point for renewed opposition to the Shield Law. Perhaps, from the perspective of those in opposition, all whistleblowers are at best the grown-up version of the despised tattletales of their youth, at worst they are all just traitors of one sort or another.
Supporters of the bill have responded in two ways. First, the Senate sponsor of the legislation, Charles Shumer, Democrat from New York, is drafting new wording that would explicitly distance the bill from WikiLeaks or similar organizations. The second, and more important response, comes from the country's news organizations and journalists. They are all lining up to loudly condemn WikiLeaks. They claim that WikiLeaks is just "a drop box for leaked documents." It just "publishes raw data without editorial oversight." WikiLeaks employees are not authentic journalists because the real ones always "go through a period of consultation before publishing sensitive material." The fact that these assertions are demonstrably untrue seems not to matter to either the news organizations or the journalists. Both have participated in maligning WikiLeaks as a politically expedient tactic aimed at saving the federal Shield Law. For the sake of that end, both groups are quite willing to throw WikiLeaks to the wolves.
What Is Really at Stake Here?
It is a sign of the superficiality of our politicians and the vested-interest orientation of American news organizations and their journalists that they have seriously misinterpreted the importance of the WikiLeaks affair. This is not about who is or who is not a "real" journalist. It is about the status and future of what is supposed to be an "open" society, wherein people are accurately informed about decisions and policies that actually, or potentially, impact their lives. It is about the right to know and the right not to be misled.
The reason that WikiLeaks' action in July caused such an uproar within the US government is because public support for both the actions that initiated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the policies that keep them going were and are based on lies and calculated omissions in public information. In other words, the administration of George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public and the administration of Barack Obama not only protects those responsible, but also continues their practices. As a result millions have been killed and maimed and nothing of lasting positive significance has been gained. WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, have taken the position that this is not only morally wrong, but politically fatal for a country that purports to be an open democracy. The news organizations/journalists have taken the position that they don't give a fig for this fatal threat as long as they can win protection in particular categories of cases that the government itself will define.
There is a lot at stake here. Yet it bears repeating that this entire affair has gone on below the radar screen of most citizens. The vast majority goes along with what the government says even as they indulge in demeaning jokes about dishonest politicians. If they did not, things would be very different. The government uses the term "national security" and the vast majority of citizens, including the journalists, simply abdicate their right to know. They assume that these two almost magic words denote activities that save lives rather than destroy them. Then along comes WikiLeaks and it says no, Americans must know the consequences of the policies carried out by their government. America, here are the facts. The result from the general public has been a proverbial "whimper." No "bang" has been detected. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), the British critic and lexicographer, once observed that, "about things on which the public thinks long it commonly attains to think right." I greatly admire Johnson, but on this he was wrong. Unless manipulated into doing so by the mass media, the public rarely if ever thinks long about anything. Sadly, this includes the right, much less the need, to know what is done in its name.
Lawrence Davidson is a professor of Middle East history at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, and author of the works listed below.
Contributing Editor: Logos: A Journal of Modern Society & Culture
http://www.logosjournal.com
"Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest"
http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=I&Group=55&ID=1490
"America's Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions From Balfour to Israeli Statehood"
http://www.upf.com/authorbooks.asp?lname=Davidson&fname=Lawrence
"Islamic Fundamentalism"
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR2429.aspx
Keep your eye on the language: When South Africa assigned rights according to race they called it apartheid. When Israel assigns rights according to religion they call it the only democracy in the Middle East.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
 20 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Samuel Johnson lived in a time when people did not have the many distractions we have like television, films, radio and other such mixed benefits...too much of anything is just too much!
Although in his day, people were overworked and exhausted because so many were poverty stricken and the classes were divided in many ways invisible today, people also were able to think harder and longer about things that affected their lives. And perhaps even though they were less "educated" than people today, it is possible that they came to more of the right conclusions. There were revolts in those days, too. People read more then (or were read to) than today.
Today Samuel Johnson would be wrong - certainly in this country - too many iPods, mindless news commentators, television nonsense, as well as those "respectable" - read despicable - expensive suited self-serving who we are taught to look up to simply because they have learned how to rip the rest of us off. Yes they existed in those days, too; they exist today and will always exist.
Read some ....no read all of Charles Dickens... to see how things were in England in the 1800's. The caring Charles Dicken's universally read and very influential in helping reform many wrongs of his day. I wish we could shake his bones, wake him up, dust him off and put him to work analyzing the state of this country today. His comments re his visit here were not very much appreciated by Americans then, but he was generally on target. His voice would ring loud and clear about the right of the public to know and against the corruption of today's media. Media need more courage like his today!
However, what "wrong" can be righted by showing the world--including our terrorist enemies--our plans?
Could you imagine someone televising D-Day documents back in WWII--and being held up as a Hero for it?
And now they want to avoid the consequences of doing so!
(military/industrial/corporate/terrorism) coup de etat came into full bloom during the Bushwhacked years, "anarchist" is another faux logo, applied by our over 80,000 'spook' villianaire enforcers to designate peaceful peace demonstrators. These peace lovers are "anarchists" for one reason only: because they threaten the villianaires' oh so profitable wars, wars, and more wars.
GO, WIKILEAKS, GO, AND GO, ANARCHISTS, GO!
(military/industrail/corporate/terrormis) complex use "anarchist" when referring to peaceful peace demonstrators. The rulers and their enforcers can't have a peace fad catch on, now can they? Can't have the damned sheeple messing with their greed and power addiction. And, of course, the corporate owned and controlled 'mess' media is not covering any of this.
GO, WIKILEAKS, GO! and GO,ANARCHISTS, GO!
Should the American people know about this? It is Barack Obama's opinion that they should not. He wants such children to suffer without the American people ever finding out about them. He wants to prosecute those who let us find out in this case. He would have that misguided helicopter soldier left alone with all the demons this ill-conceived war has released inside him, to struggle alone, after returning home, and to be told that he's just fine, and doesn't need any special help. Barack Obama is impeachable.
RSS feed for comments to this post.