U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Saturday announced that the federal government has the right to prosecute journalists who reveal classified information in publications. He stressed the need to balance freedom of the press with the federal government’s desire to prosecute criminal activity. Gonzales indicated that The New York Times’ decision to print information regarding the National Security Agency’s telephone surveillance program may have presented a danger to U.S. security.
The First Amendment is one of the most well-known and most-commonly invoked parts of the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason. The freedom to speak, write and print controversial and dissenting opinions about the government is an important check on the immense power invested in the government. As journalists, we are especially aware of our responsibility to print information that not everyone wants published but that is of great interest and use to the general public. In the Jeffersonian view, the press has an obligation to act as the Fourth Estate by providing the information that people need to make informed decisions – information required to make a democracy function.
Sadly, as many press critics point out, many of today’s media may have become too concerned with entertainment to provide any real information. Moreover, the United States may simply be too large for people to become truly informed about governmental proceedings regardless of the aptitude of the press.
Yet journalists must continue to strive for this ideal whether they are writing about the federal government or a university’s student officials. Gonzales’ statements undermine this function, indicating that reporters should refrain from printing stories that might damage national security without defining a standard for determining what is harmful. Certainly some information, such as troop movements in Iraq revealed on national television by Geraldo Rivera in 2003, has a direct affect on U.S. military operations. But other information, while potentially damaging to the government’s reputation, is simply so significant that the public deserves to know it. An often-cited example occurred during the early 1970s when The New York Times printed the Pentagon Papers, a report detailing the history of U.S military operations in Vietnam that was leaked to the press.
By failing to outline clear standards, Gonzales has issued the kind of threat to journalists that a bully might shout on the playground, in essence saying, “Watch your step, be careful about disclosing any government information, because we just might take you to court.”
Perhaps Gonzales believes that by making a statement rather than a rule he will scare journalists away from printing government information while protecting himself from accusations of First Amendment violations. We hope, however, that national publications such as The New York Times will not hesitate to continue doing their jobs and printing stories such as the piece about the NSA program.
It has been said before, and it deserves to be said again, that protecting the U.S. is only a worthwhile goal as long as the civil rights that have come to define our nation remain intact. Reporters deserve the opportunity to do their job without threats from the government because Americans deserves to hear what journalists have to say.