To report and report not

Journalistic freedoms are always important to the welfare of our nation, but particularly now, as the current Administration seeks ever tighter control over government information.

Michael Gillespie provides a detailed summary of the Valerie Plame leak case and First Amendment issues in his story, Fear and Loathing in the Newsroom (www.dissidentvoice.org, August 12, 2004). The Plame case, along with the case of Wen Ho Lee, has triggered debate on journalist's right to protect the identities of confidential sources of information. Gillespie also provides insight into Big Media's coverage of the Bush Administration, from the view of a free-lance reporter.

"Many journalsts employed by corporate media news organizations are under tremendous pressures to cooperate with the Bush administration on all matters related to the war on terrorism, and such pressures are certain to influence the way the White House leak scandal is reported. Editors, reporters, columnists, commentators, and producers who refuse to self-censor along lines that are essentially political, lines laid down by those who sign their pay checks, can quickly find themselves out on the street looking for work. From veteran journalist and former Rocky Mountain News international affairs editor Holger Jensen to former prime time MSNBC correspondent Ashleigh Banfield, Big Media professionals who have dared to cross the line in the name of truth and personal and professional integrity have been axed by news organization owners and managers unwilling to disappoint their political masters."

The public welfare is best served when journalists may freely report stories and, at the same time, not report the names of confidential sources who disclose government wrongdoing.

Newspapers admit failing the public on Iraq war

Two major newspapers have now admitted what national security whistleblowers have long known: media coverage rubber stamped the Bush administration's push for invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz says editors resisted stories questioning the accuracy of claims that Iraq possessed WMD. "We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," said Bob Woodward, the paper's managing editor. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer/AP, "Washington Post says Iraq coverage flawed," August 12) The New York Times made similar admissions in May of this year.

The face of terror

It is not uncommon for someone to ask, “What makes a person a “whistleblower?” Often, whistleblowers are described as people who report wrongdoing, at risk to themselves. Increasingly, whistleblowers are described in the press as “courageous.” But, simply reporting wrongdoing, even courageously, would not complete the definition of a whistleblower. The true whistleblower acts with unselfish purpose and, in so doing, becomes a hero.

The distinction between courage and heroism was described with unusual clarity in the September 26, 2001 article, "Not by Courage Alone: Why Altruism and Love Should Define Our Heroes," published on Findlaw.com . Author and Rutgers Law School professor, Sherry Colb, points out the American tendency to characterize atrocities such as the September 11 attacks as acts of cowardice, as though, “accusing a person of cruelty, viciousness and pure evil were no match for calling him a “wuss.”

Calling terrorists “cowards” is inaccurate, Ms. Colb says, because some degree of fearlessness is needed for perpetrators to face death in the pursuit of their goals. Nor, is it fair to view fear as a cause for shame, because heroes typically act in spite of fear. What distinguishes mere courage from heroism, Colb writes, is that heroes, inspire us “with their lives, their warmth, their care, and their generosity, at great sacrifice to themselves;” but, “courage without empathy is the face of terror.” It seems a good yardstick for measuring any endeavor, whether whistleblowing or war.