With further release of classified State Department information (although nothing particularly astonishing, according to the article), the question again arises of the role of the free press in a society. Should the government be able to regulate the news industry? Should they have the ability to stop stories from being published? Where is the First Amendment line drawn?
For years (and even still now), I wanted to be a journalist, covering national politics for the Washington Post, especially after taking journalism courses in high school. Unrealistic dreams aside, these ambitions and working on my high school newspaper gave me a unique perspective of the role of the journalist and how crucial it is. I find myself an ardent supporter of a free press, to recognize the responsibility that journalists have as crucial to maintaining a free society, by getting people informed and better able to make decisions.
As much as I promote privatization and good business techniques to make a profit, I think the news industry is one that needs to realize what they're doing is actually a cause bigger than just making smart business decisions. They are informing a state, a nation, a world and their actions can cause extreme security problem. Therefore, the journalists and news organizations themselves must recognize that they have to make a distinction between what is news and what is a threat to security. I always think of Bob Woodward's books when I think of this, how he always makes a point to mention that he and his editor confronted higher ups and asked them why the story should not be published. If they offered a compelling reason as to why not to publish the story because it threatened national security, the Post wouldn't. Plain and simple. Still, it is all about the decision and in the Bill of Rights, we put this in the hands of the people to make this choice. It’s a civil liberty that is ingrained in our society and is crucial to our society. Both the government and any news organization reporting information need to confront one another – provide a check and balance in determining what information is safe to report and what shouldn’t be.
I strongly agree with you that even though they have the right to free speech, they have to strike a balance between exercising their right and endangering lives. The situation WikiLeaks creates puts many lives in jeopardy. Some information could fall into the wrong hands. This is just as if someone started yelling threatening and vulgar language towards a certain group of people. Even though this person has the right to free speech, law enforcement would stop the person from going on because it creates a highly unsafe environment. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, we have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness. We do have those rights, but not at the cost of the rights of others.
ReplyDeleteDear Wikileaks,
ReplyDeleteShhhhhh!!!
Sincerely, The world.
from http://dearblankpleaseblank.com/index.php
The definition of free speech is not that everyone needs to know everything. Humans are the ultimate pack animals, our packs are just so developed they're called societies. In every pack there are leaders, usually one or two Alphas. Since humans packs are super big we have governments instead but it's essentially the same thing. We elect them to keep us safe because on some level we think that they know better then every Joe Jones and Jane Smith. As a result of this system, not all information is available to everyone because we societies as big as ours, some members are bound to be idiots. It's for our own good.
ReplyDeleteI support free speech but some things should be kept under-wraps for our own safety. That's why we vote for these people. That being said, Wikileaks has released nothing of any consequence but the road they are taking us down will lead to diplomatic apocalypse