Investigative Journalism and Classified Information
I love investigative reporting, and I love reading about CIA operations, so when Brian Ross and his investigative team at ABC broke the story that President Bush had authorized a covert destabilization operation against the Iranian government, I was all ears. Brian Ross is one of the best investigative journalists in the country, and has broken many stories of great magnitude in the past. However, the sensitive nature of this news piece once again brought to the surface the question of journalistic responsibility when making news. This CIA operation is of course classified and not meant for the public, or Iran, to know. The question is:
Is there some information that journalists should not report because of potential danger or backlash?
I see both sides of this debate. On the one-hand, as an investigative journalist, to publish a story exposing corruption or secret plans or cover-ups is the top of the mountain – after all, this is the goal of the profession. Ross did not break any laws; he only reported what his sources were willing to pass on to him. Shouldn’t the leakers ultimately be responsible for this, not the journalist?
On the other hand, should value for nation or fellow citizens sometimes trump personal accolades and career objectives? If so, where do you draw the line? There was backlash after the abuses at Abu-Ghraid prison in Iraq, should that not have been reported? The New York Times famously broke the story on the NSA wire-tapping program, which no doubt tipped off the terrorists regarding phone communications, should that have been kept under wraps? Obviously this story did not have to be reported, and we can probably assume that many other stories dealing with sensitive information go unprinted by other news agencies.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that if there’s super-sensitive information that the public should never hear, you’d better tell as few people as possible and threaten Jack Bauer-like techniques towards everyone if any leaks occur. Of course if you know Jack, you know he’ll do “whatever it takes”.
Journalism is a hard thing and it often runs up against very gray ethical areas. I’m not sure where the line needs to be drawn. I do think that sometimes there are things that we don’t need to know, and that I would rather not know. On the other hand there are some things that we were never intended to know that we should have known. I wish that I didn’t know about Abu-Ghraid, if only so that I wouldn’t feel some level of responsibility. After all by being an American I am somewhat complicit in the wrongful actions that other Americans take, but I needed to know so that I could bear those responsibilities. We weren’t supposed to know about the wire-tappings, obviously if the wire-tapping was being done correctly that should have been kept under wraps. However, if there was an abuse of power or privacy that happened or was very likely going to happen then we needed to know. I like to think it’s one of the checks and balances of society. Should the Iranian government be destabilized? Honestly I’m not sure, but I sure would like to know when my elected officials authorize something that I don’t necessarily think is moral, right or good. Then I can at least make my voice of opposition heard, and if they’re doing something right I can congratulate them on a job well done.