OPINION & EDITORIAL
Times justified in printing ‘secrets’
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Herald fails to adequately justify publication of controversial cartoon (February 16, 2006)
- Muslims do not deserve stereotype (February 21, 2006)
- Censorship via blackmail (October 10, 2001)
- Print media aids own downfall (September 4, 2006)
- Readers respond to printing of Muhammad cartoon (February 15, 2006)
by Emily Friedman
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
It is an issue that every news organization will inevitably face: to print or not to print.
This very paper grappled with that dilemma in February, when the Editorial Board decided to publish the controversial cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban. Supporters believed it was necessary to provide the public with the image, regardless of how offensive it may have been. Better that they know, it was argued, than the paper be accused of holding back content from its readers. What about information that is not offensive, but rather potentially dangerous to publish?
The New York Times is facing possible indictment after printing two articles that some argue could jeopardize the safety of Americans. The first article, published in December 2005, detailed a National Security Agency program that would allow eavesdropping on U.S. communications overseas without warrants. The second was a report about how the government is using a banking group called "Swift" to track international financial transactions in an effort to catch terrorists. Both are plans that the administration hopes will deter future terrorist attacks on the U.S.
This dilemma has plagued editors forever. On one hand, there is the constitutionally protected freedom to give citizens the information they need in a functioning democracy. On the other, there is the need to exercise responsible caution in revealing national secrets — especially when doing so might cost lives.
During the Kennedy administration, the New York Times decided against printing secret information about the pending Bay of Pigs invasion. After all was said and done, the invasion was a failure and editors regretted holding back — the paper decided not to divulge invasion plans because the government argued it would cause the invasion to fail. President Kennedy later said he also regretted the Times' decision not to publish.
More than 40 years later, the New York Times is facing scrutiny for similar reasons. Critics believe that, by publishing information about the plans, the paper is divulging sensitive national secrets and consequently helping terrorists.
Reader reaction to the issues raised by the Times was mixed.
One reader wrote: "Your editorial 'Patriotism and the Press' brings into play the concept of 'could have' versus 'should have.' Could you print the story of the secret anti-terrorism program in question? Yes. Should you have? No."
Others echoed my own sentiments about the issue, and were supportive of the journalists who decided to divulge the information. These are the same readers who continue to question how much other information the government is keeping from the public.
In the case of the cartoon, I disagree with the decision to publish. It seemed unnecessary to print an image that readers, if they wanted, could have found within seconds on the Internet. Printing the image in a respectable publication angered me and seemed to be an unnecessary use of power by the editors.
My stance changes, though, when considering the two New York Times articles. I commend the paper on the decision to publish and am thankful that the press continues to be a watchdog of our government's policies.
I do not feel less safe because of the reports, and I am positive that the information in the articles was nothing the terrorists didn't already suspect.
Terrorist organizations likely already knew the U.S. would be tracking telephone calls and financial transactions. These measures are nothing new; most counterterrorism programs involve one or both of these methods to help countries learn more about their enemies.
It is also important to realize that the decision by the Times was not made lightly. Information about the programs was held for more than a year while editors took the time to evaluate government objectives. Sensitive details were still omitted from the final copy, to the relief of the administration.
Government officials will never stop trying to influence what appears on the front page of newspapers or on the evening news. It is their job, after all, to do everything in their power to persuade Americans they are in full control of any potential threats to the U.S.
But it is the job of the media — and of journalists worldwide — to continue to challenge what people tell them they should and should not publish and to make these difficult decisions for the sake of the public.
Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
Anonymous (August 9, 2006 @ 10:12am):
We would have lost WW II if the New York Times had acted then as it does now. The Germans would have known the exact timetable for D-Day.
Anonymous (August 10, 2006 @ 2:53pm):
The right of the press to publish secret information should not be held more sacred than our safety. Perhaps the terrorists didn't learn anything new from the revalation. But what if it were something else? What if the paper had published exact methods the government used to tap these conversations, thus giving the terrorists clues as to how to avoid them?
I would rather have the government keep secrets and protect me. Would you watch an air plane blow up and say "well, at least the government didn't tap my phone calls."
Anonymous (August 10, 2006 @ 3:27pm):
Well, thank God the Treason Times didn't have the opportunity to tip off our enemies regarding UK efforts to foil today's terror plot. Otherwise, you might have woke up today to 9/11 Part II.
Now we learn Dearborn law enforcement just caught 2 local terrorists with untraceable cell phones, airplane passenger lists, information on airport security checkpoints in their car and (SURPRISE!) $11,000 cash. There's no telling how many of these thugs are avoiding wire-transfers that might lead to their capture, thanks to the Treason Times.
WTF is wrong with you journalists?
So, when exactly will the public's "right-to-know" extend to the telling us who's treasonous lips tipped off the NYTimes? Hmmmm?
Anonymous (August 10, 2006 @ 7:16pm):
... here come the journalists beginning their step-by-step stories about how to build a bomb based on the public's need to know. Copy cats will appreciate that.
Anonymous (August 11, 2006 @ 3:38pm):
PUKE!! Ugh, you're a moron! Don't publish cartoons of muhammad, but publish national secrets??!!! Are you out of your mind?!
If the information was something the terrorists already knew, why are you blowing smoke up the Times' ass for printing it? Half-witted argument! The
Anonymous (August 11, 2006 @ 4:05pm):
Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs. . . .
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008785
Anonymous (August 17, 2006 @ 1:43am):
Let's have all the people who think civil liberties aren't important go spend the fall the semester in Gitmo and leave the rest of us in peace.
Anonymous (August 18, 2006 @ 9:36pm):
Let's have all the people who think civil liberties are more important than their lives go spend the fall the semester in Iran and leave the rest of us in peace.
