Monthly Archives: September 2013
To overcome a problem, you must first be aware of its existence. With this rule in mind, the mass surveillance disclosures can be regarded as something positive in the sense that we could not protest let alone initiate reform without having been informed that the government is spying on us. In other words: American citizens would not be able to take steps against ubiquitous surveillance if it wasn’t for the courageous whistleblowing of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
Snowden and Manning deserve the highest credit not only for leaking information the world absolutely needs to know, but also for putting their lives and careers on the line to stand up for what they believe in. Thanks to them, everybody can see why mass surveillance concerns us all. Snowden said: “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity, or love, or friendship is recorded.” Do you?
Therefore, those people who care about which kind of world they live in (and I hope belong to this group), would want this kind of information to be made public. They would want to know everything that is going on. They would want political dissidents and investigative journalists to dig up scandals, for they can have a positive, cleansing function and also help review and refine our societal values and norms. What’s more, they enable our democracy to advance and assure ourselves of our moral principles.
That being said, the media plays a crucial role in this process all well, as I have stated in a previous post.
This is not to say that everything that whistleblowers want to make public is ethically or morally defensible. There is certainly a fine line between disclosing something that the public has a right to know about and information that is not essential and/or could put someone’s life in danger.
However, I firmly believe that both Manning and Snowden are highly idealistic and brave people, for they did not only their country but the world a great service. I sincerely hope that their audacious actions will encourage other people to take similar steps, because the recent disclosures are likely only the tip of the iceberg.
Imagine our so-called democracy converts to a police state in which a totalitarian government uses universal surveillance to control us and be able to follow our every step. Imagine a world in which the definition of “appropriate” thought and behavior becomes so narrow that even the most pedantic norm violations are met with exclusion or punishment. Imagine a place devoid of privacy and solitude because of absolute, 24/7 surveillance. Although we are far away from an Orwellian state, this summer’s disclosures should not only be a warning for all of us but an plea to think about what kind of future we want to live in.
A considerable number of people seem to exhibit a certain apathy about possible negative repercussions mass surveillance, eavesdropping and data mining can have. Granted, the matter is complex and not very palpable; Technical terms and nontransparent procedures make it hard to grasp, which may cause people to feel like they cannot do anything about it and may help them come to terms with it. People are more likely to take issue when other civil liberties like the right of association were hampered. Consequently, you might not think that you should be concerned about the processes because they supposedly do not affect you or appear to be irrelevant. Yet I firmly believe that we have to understand the implications on our privacy and find ways to protect it, for if this matter does not concern you, I don’t know what does.
The recent disclosures about the scope of government surveillance are staggering. In my article about the latest revelations, I showed how the National Security Agency and other government agencies are capable of cracking the encryption that “guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the emails, web searches, internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world.” We are not only talking about metadata, but the content of communication and confidential information. I find it extremely worrying that every time you leave a trace in the digital realm in one way, shape or form, it is possible that somewhere, somebody from the government knows exactly what you are doing.
With millions of people being monitored, the question is: Who is going to look through these massive amounts of data and accurately distinguish an innocent citizen from a criminal or a terrorist? Civil rights advocate Nadine Strossen says that “we’re burying any potentially relevant leads in data that nobody has been able to search through.” Even machines are not apt for this task. Imagine an academic writing a research paper on terrorism, searching for “Al-Qaeda”, “airplane” and “bombs” on Google in the process. Now imagine a member of a terrorist organization doing the same. How is a machine supposed to know the difference between these two entirely different motives?
Everybody has a right to privacy. By that I do not mean that everybody should have a right for privacy, or that privacy is simply something we take for granted; I am talking about a fundamental freedom that is a part of the constitution of many countries around the world. That being said, the eavesdropping is not merely worrisome, but in fact unlawful. In this country, the 4th Amendment grants every citizen the right to privacy against governmental intrusion. Why is the N.S.A. able to clandestinely access our digital information and belongings when real-world law enforcement needs written permission in form of a warrant from a court of law to search a home? Strossen says that there should not only be “an opportunity to challenge the warrant process”, but also individualized suspicion, because “the 4th Amendment approach of individualized suspicion protects individual liberties.”
During a press conference in Berlin on June 19th this summer, President Obama said that the U.S. surveillance program is a “circumscribed, narrow system, directed at us […], and all of it is done under the oversight of the courts.” Reality speaks a different language. Besides, the scope of the surveillance would make it virtually impossible to get permission from a court every time an online warrant was needed. Breaking encryption and snaring people’s conversations ought to require a warrant just like the one that is needed for a house search. Our government should secure and protect our inherent rights, which is the very reason we created the government in the first place. Right now it is clearly not living up to that expectation.
Some of you might say: “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”, meaning that data mining and surveillance programs do not threaten privacy unless they discover illegal activities. First of all, what is right and what is wrong is often not clearly distinguishable. Opinions or actions can be incorrectly interpreted and tarnish somebody’s reputation, particularly if data falls in the hands of a third party. The example of the academic I gave earlier illustrates this well. Moreover, the autonomy and aspects of human dignity that the right to privacy protects are vital to the development of individuality and consciousness of individual choice in life, hence restrictions on privacy can have severe repercussions on individuals.
If you still aren’t concerned, consider this: Surveillance leads to “heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety”, according to an online article on theguardian.com. It also “reduces performance and our sense of personal control.” When faced with threats such as terrorism, most citizens presumably tolerate limited surveillance and accept the trade-off between our security and somebody else’s civil liberties. However, the mass surveillance measures, which were revealed over the last couple of months, show us that these measures are no longer only applied to terrorists but to all citizens. Therefore, the real trade-off is not between our security and the alleged terrorists’ civil liberties. It is between our rights and our security.
One worrisome implication of this trade is that citizen will probably lose trust in government and authorities. Spying on your own people creates an aura of general suspicion, leading to people becoming more susceptible to seemingly suspicious behaviors and potential threats as well as more distrust amongst them. Consequently, people are going to be more careful about what say or do, which might in turn severely hamper creativity and freedom of expression and will presumably result in less discourse and exchange of ideas. What’s more, the rift between the authorities and the citizens might become so big that a substantial number of people could actively oppose their governments. It has also been argued that mass surveillance can lead to conformity to social norms, which can stifle innovation, critical thinking, and originality.
Not only can mass surveillance by the government be harmful for its citizens, it can also have detrimental effects on the government itself. In spite of possible positive consequences, reconnaissance can reduce leaders’ influence by nurturing resentment and distrust.
Furthermore, ubiquitous mass surveillance by the government can not only mean that you lose your privacy, but potentially your job. According to Strossen, the business community has come together with civil libertarians to protest against excessive eavesdropping, for business and technology experts are saying that due to lack of privacy it would be “foolish to do business with American companies because trade secrets aren’t going to be protected and you’re going to be vulnerable to cyber criminals.” For example, a report released by The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation says that “NSA surveillance could cost the U.S. cloud computing industry anywhere from $22 to $35 billion over the next three years”.
If everybody remained passive, the government would simply continue on its course because they are going to realize that even if they don’t obey the law they can get by with it. I firmly believe that it is everyone’s moral and ethical obligation to act in order to protect our civil liberties.
Taking steps to leave behind as small of an online footprint as possible is a first step, but if we want to curtail the power of the N.S.A and other agencies, we need to reach out to our representatives in Congress, sign petitions and join protest marches. Strossen, who teaches Law at New York Law School, says that everybody should be repealing provisions in the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. According to Strossen, „a whole lot of reforms” are required to “bring the law back into line with the 4th Amendment.”
We need to remember that our democracy is not history in its final state but merely a temporarily secured form of existence, which is why we must all contribute to preserving our privacy if we want to enjoy this freedom ten years from now. If you don’t think standing up for something as vital as your privacy is worth it, why do you attend games to cheer your favorite sports team on? Why do you vote?
I sincerely hope that we can look back on this time in a generation or two and say that we showed the government that they cannot intrude our privacy without us taking action against it.
Now that almost five weeks of the SuperSemester are in the books, I can say that I have a much better idea of what producing newscasts specifically, and working for television in general entails and demands. I have done every task and assumed every role at least once by now, which enabled me to gain a good understanding of the workflow and what it takes to work in a television newsroom.
I was pretty happy with the outcome of my first package last week. My report was about civil rights advocate Nadine Strossen, who came to Lindenwood to speak about mass surveillance and its implications on our civil liberties. To start things off, I made sure that Mrs. Strossen was available for an interview. It turned out that she had very little time after the presentation and asked if we could instead conduct the interview during a short time slot before the speech. Being flexible and starting early are certainly two key attributes every journalist needs to have. Although I had enough time to pick up my camera, shave, dress up, write down a few questions and a stand-up, get ready and go to the Anheuser-Busch Leadership Room, I underestimated how long all of these things were going to take. In spite of getting to there in time, I was a bit stressed and promised myself to arrive even earlier next time.
I took one of the lines from the interview for my stand-up, which worked nicely. Coming up with a good stand-up is certainly an art in itself, for it requires quick thinking, considering how it will sound when the package goes on the air later, awareness of your body language, and clear, understandable sentences. Plus you have to get a sense of what information is important. Having somebody assist you with the camera certainly makes things easier.
Despite white balancing my camera in the beginning, I did not think about how the LED light could affect the internal circuit of the camera, which resulted in shots that had a blue touch when the LED was on. I also learned that bringing an extra P2-card is a sage thing to do, as you never know how much footage you need to record. With limited time during a shoot, the last thing you want is having to delete clips because your card is almost full. The next time I interview somebody in a closed room or at night, I will make sure that there is sufficient room between the wall and the person to avoid having shadows in the shot.
The shooting part was followed by the long post-production phase which took longer than I had anticipated. Overall I spent about roughly ten hours on my package, but I was entirely worth it. I think the most important lesson I learned is that like in video production, pre-production is the most important part of shooting a package.
This Monday, I anchored for the second time. I realized that it is paramount to have read every single story out loud at least once. In order to so that, anchors need to start going through their scripts at least 35 minutes before airtime. Although I was lucky that I was able to tell the stories I had not read without any errors, it felt unprofessional and could have easily backfired. Another valuable lesson I learned was that it is essential to keep looking into the camera until the floor director indicates that the technical director has switched to a different camera.
Sometimes small things are important, such as making sure to keep a bottle of water under the anchor desk if you have trouble speaking when your lips become dry (like me), or ask somebody if you are presentable, although I would argue that the producer and the maybe the floor director should also keep an eye on that.
On Friday September 13th, my first VO-SOT aired. I was happy with the result, considering that it was my first one. It took me a while to learn the structure of a VO-SOT and how to enter the different commands in iNews, but now that I have one under my belt, my second VO-SOT was rather easy to do.
My first time producing was challenging yet rewarding. When I heard that the 49ers were coming to practice at Lindenwood, I thought it would be cool to do a live shot from Hunter Stadium, where the football team would practice later that day. Although we weren’t allowed to break the news on the three O’clock newscast, we recorded two different sports teases and two different live shots, one without the big news for the live newscast and one for the evening edition that included it. I was thrilled about everybody being very supportive, that my idea was acknowledged, and that we pursued it regardless of the strict policy. Seeing my plan become a reality actually encourages me to try more sophisticated things next time I produce.
When the latest disclosures of former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden were made public on September 5th, the world was able to see that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies are capable of cracking the encryption designed to provide online privacy and security. The British newspaper The Guardian, The New York Times and ProPublica reported the case.
As the NY Times points out, encryption “guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the emails, web searches, internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world.” In a collaborative effort with the British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters, the National Security Agency has attempted to break into protected traffic of popular Internet companies such as Google, Facebook or Yahoo. After a summer of seemingly unexpected and unprecedented revelations about how the N.S.A. and other agencies were eavesdropping its own people and its allies, this is considered only the latest chapter in a series of worrisome events that undermine privacy and fundamental liberties.
Since its inception in 2000, the highly classified program code-named Bullrun has allowed the N.S.A. to hack into computers of companies to snare messages before they were encrypted. In spite of losing a public battle to insert its own “back door” in all encryption in the 1990s, the N.S.A. employed the method regardless. Nadine Strossen, professor of Law at New York Law School, was not surprised by this. Having been an advocate for civil liberties all her life, she, unlike the general public, was aware about not only the existence of the surveillance program, but also about its extent. “What’s really dismaying to me is that every time you think you have a victory, you don’t really because the agencies just go ahead do it anyway“, Strossen said.
There are numerous other examples similar to Bullrun that show how the N.S.A. is apparently not subject of adequate scrutiny by the government and seems to play by its own rules. In the aforementioned NY Times article, cryptographer Paul Kocher recalls how the N.S.A. “lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip”. Although the use of the Clipper Chip was defeated, the N.S.A. clandestinely availed itself of the tool anyway. In 2002, the Bush administration initiated a program called Total Information Awareness, or T.I.A., which received a considerable amount of press in the wake of 9/11. According to a NY Times article from 2002, the underlying idea of the T.I.A. program is that “the best way to catch terrorists is to allow federal agencies to share information about American citizens and aliens that is currently stored in separate databases.” T.M.I. was a trailblazer of the massive domestic surveillance scheme called PRISM, which remained secret until early June this year, when information about the program, leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, was published by a number of media.
When the N.S.A. was founded 60 years ago, encryption was an obscure technology. Now that we are entering a “golden age of spying”, it has become “ubiquitous”, cryptograph Kocher declares. “Today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort.”
In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union said the actions will “further erode not only the United States’ reputation as a global champion of civil liberties and privacy but the economic competitiveness of its largest companies.”
So why were people surprised and outraged when they heard about the data mining program this summer? Strossen believes that the government doesn’t make it easy for us to find out. “The information flow between the people and the government is exactly the opposite of what it should be. We should know what our government is doing but we don’t because of undue secrecy and they shouldn’t know what we do but they do because of undue surveillance.”
Strossen also believes that the lack of knowledge has a lot to do with people not being aware of events in general and the fact that both the private sector and government have hidden information about the extent to which they are getting information. “At worst”, she denunciates, “they have outright lied to us”. When Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper was asked in a hearing in the U.S. Senate earlier this year whether the N.S.A. was collecting data on millions of Americans, he replied: “not wittingly”.
Strossen, who served as president of the A.C.L.U. for 18 years, underscores the importance of civil liberties in a democratic society. “Without fundamental freedoms, in particular speech, thought, press, and association, which are all 1st amendment freedoms, we would not be able to advocate for any other right, we wouldn’t have access to information, we couldn’t communicate about our government and we couldn’t criticize it.” In other words: We wouldn’t have a functioning democracy.
Another worrisome development is how most people seem to be more concerned by surveillance and data mining by the private sector than they are by government. A September 5th survey by the Pew Research Center found out that internet users “are more intent on trying to mask their personal information from hackers, advertisers, friends and family members than they are trying to avoid observation by the government.”
Strossen, who has more than 250 published works, attributes this trend “to a believe or even hope on the part of most people that if the government is getting information it’s to protect me from terrorist attacks, whereas if the private sector is getting it, it’s just so they can market to me and I’m not interested in that.”
The latest revelations, however, clearly show how getting information from private companies is a vital part of intelligence agencies’ strategy. Although major tech firms like Microsoft and Google insist that they “provide user data to government only in accordance with the law”, the classified documents indicate that the agency’s success depends on the collaboration with the internet companies. According to one of the documents leaked by Snowden, who was granted temporary asylum in Russia after he had spent over one month at a Moscow airport, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on a project that allows it to “actively engage the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products’ designs” to make them “exploitable”.
Amid these alarming developments, Strossen insisted that the state of our civil liberties when it comes to surveillance is actually better now that the surreptitious proceedings have been confirmed. After this summer’s disclosures, one could think that surveillance has become worse over the last ten years. In the light of the fact that the eavesdropping has been going on for at least a decade, however, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Strossen says that although it has been “really bad, at least since 9/11”, at least it didn’t get worse. “The fact that we know about it thanks to whistleblowers such as Snowden is actually a big improvement.”
„To me, Snowden is a patriotic hero“, Strossen says, adding that she feels “much more encouraged today” than she was prior to the revelations.
What’s more, the Pew Research Center survey revealed that 86 percent of people surveyed have taken steps to remove or mask their digital footprints, while 55 percent say that they are worried about information available about them online, a figure that was only at 33 percent in 2009.
In spite of most people being relatively passive, the civil libertarian says that “there has been an amazing amount of uproar and criticism”. Moreover, quite a few people have “signed letters of protests and petitions.” The A.C.L.U. and other organizations have not only been gathering signatures online, but they have also been encouraging people to communicate with members of Congress, which led to a recent Congressional vote to cut back on government’s authority, which came very close to passing.
Strossen strongly believes that the government should strengthen whistleblower protection. Guarding journalists who are under attack is something she calls “essential”, because “if we do not have the basic information then there is no way we can fight back at any level.” Apart from that, Strossen supports several bills, which are pending in Congress right now, that cut back on the government’s power. She is also a fierce proponent of revising and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which became effective in 1978. Generally speaking, the activist argues that we need reforms that would “bring the law back into line with the 4th Amendment.”
Strossen, who has received Honorary Doctor of Law Degrees from six different universities and colleges, claims that there is no evidence that the N.S.A.’s “extraordinary new powers” have been “necessary or effective” in fighting terrorism. Her and other experts and authorities call the surveillance program “a colossal waste of money” and the data mining approach “junk science”. Furthermore, she believes that with congressional oversight and judicial review it is possible to channel the government’s resources more effectively. “We’re burying any potentially relevant leads in data that nobody has been able to search through” Strossen says, adding that the “problem is not lack of information but lack of ability to analyze and coordinate information.”
“The Super Semester will be unlike anything you have ever done.” This sentence, uttered in our first class by instructor and professor of Communications Jill Falk, made me excited and anxious to find out what this cluster of courses is all about.
Almost three weeks into the semester, my excitement and enthusiasm have not diminished. Now that we are actually immersing ourselves in writing, producing, shooting and editing, I feel as though it is only getting better. Although none of us has been through the full rotation cycle at this point, I have already experienced how the work we are doing is challenging yet rewarding. Television is a fast-paced working environment that revolves around conveying the most recent and accurate information to an audience in a conversational yet professional style. I also learned that producing a newscast means adhering to deadlines and industry standards.
Working for television can get hectic at times, especially in the two hours leading up to a newscast. I personally enjoy the sense of urgency one automatically gets when it is crunch time. The energy of everybody around me being focused and working toward a common goal rubs off on me. During the second week, we received breaking news regarding one of the stories we covered that day just three minutes before we went on the air. In order to give our viewers the most current version of the event, we had to slightly alter the story. I felt the pressure while the clock was ticking mercilessly, but I managed to include the latest information in the story, finishing with just a few seconds remaining before the start of the newscast. I was a little proud of myself having stayed calm and having kept my cool. Frankly, the little time I had was not sufficient to check the facts or properly attribute what I wrote. I believe, therefore, that regarding breaking news the challenge is not only to include it in the newscast in time, but, more importantly, making sure that the information is accurate and attributed to a source (and the correct one of course).
The feeling I often have after a challenging newscast is one of pride and elevation, especially if I have made a major contribution to the success of the show. It makes me feel like I have accomplished something, one of the reasons being is that I have not done this on my own but with a bunch of equally motivated people who are eager to learn something and develop their skills. In my experience, the required teamwork, the accountability and the hard work television news demands bring out the best in people.
So far I anchored once. Going into the newscast, I was not particularly nervous, and as the show progressed, I was able to relax more and started feeling more comfortable reading the stories. While I thought I did a decent job considering that it was my first newscast, having watched the DVD I now know that I still have a long way to go. For instance, I have to interact with my co-anchor better and more often, I have to understand the nature of a story and adjust my facial expression accordingly, and I have to work on my intonation and enunciation. Furthermore, I learned that it is essential to read your script aloud, best with your co-anchor, to avoid hiccups during the show, and, if necessary, to ask how to pronounce unfamiliar names or places. It is also important to be at the anchor desk at least 15 minutes prior to the newscast.
While I am also keen on writing for newspapers and for the web, the thing I like about writing for television is immediacy and timeliness. Naturally, not every event presented in a newscast happens shortly before airtime, but news tends to be more topical; Even if a story started developing the previous night, including the latest development in your show gives your work an aura of relevance and yourself a feeling that you have your finger on the pulse.
Switching between different styles of writing, i.e. newspaper, blogs and television is definitely something I have to learn this semester, for every art of writing has different rules and requires dissimilar skills. The conversational, declarative, unadorned and to the point television approach differs greatly from the more formal, eloquent and in-depth way to write for a newspaper. Blogging, on the other hand, also has its own rules and tendencies. What I like about writing for television is finding a way to tell a story in a way so that the audience can relate to it. In doing so, using empathy can go a long way, for when you try to imagine how an incident might affect somebody, you have a good chance to come up with a compelling, captivating lead. Naturally, this doesn’t mean that you should try to be as catchy as possible. After all, sensationalism does not have a place in serious, investigative, quality journalism. Instead, the goal is to grab the audience’s attention by telling them why a given matter concerns them.
After a summer whose number one topic in the news was how the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies were eavesdropping its own people and its allies, I am surprised that I have heard very few people talk about it and read fairly little about it in the news now that I am back in the States.
After the initial outrage seems to have died down a bit, I thought it was about time to see what people think about the topic and what the media in the US have to say about it. After all, I believe it is an all-important matter, for it concerns our personal freedom.
Two recent articles not only show how the disclosures are far from being over, but they also enlarge upon the media and its specific role in it. The first article, found on niemanlab.org, is a reminder how pervasive and alarming the matter still is; the second article, found on the guardian.com/uk, explicitly shows what can happen to investigative journalists. Since every journalist should have a keen interest in this matter, I highly recommend both pieces.
The crucial role news media play in a democratic society has seldom been more evident than it was this summer. Without newspapers, online news websites, television newscasts, and other media outlets, the world would have never learned about the previously unthinkable extent to which various intelligence agencies around the globe have access to metadata, thanks to the surveillance program PRISM, and even the content of phone calls and e-mails through XKeyscore. Therefore, they can potentially know everything about us. Although Edward Snowden was instrumental in making the news public, he could have never done it with the same effect, credibility, and scope without the help of the media.
Personally, I thought that British daily newspaper The Guardian and the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel which collaborated in publishing Snowden’s disclosures, struck the balance of informing the public while omitting information that could have endangered people associated with the program. Although they could not prevent the clandestine information from spreading, they are now trying to do what is in their power to avert future leaks. It is disturbing how the U.S. and U.K. governments respond to journalists reporting on the leaks. The surveillance state is obviously scared that journalists unveil secrets and facts about their eavesdropping activities, which I am sure means only one thing: That intelligence agencies like the NSA or the British GCHQ have got a lot more skeletons in their closet. Their legitimacy, even their right of existence, so to speak, is at stake.
How else do you explain David Miranda’s detention at Heathrow Airport on August 18th? Several journalists and UN representatives have subsequently warned the British government, saying that “the protection of national security secrets must never be used as an excuse to intimidate the press into silence and backing off from its crucial work in the clarification of human rights violation.”
These violations of the press prove once more that there is a need for a debate on how much privacy we are willing to give up as a society to ensure that threats like terrorism can be effectively countered. In other words: How much privacy and individual freedom do we have to sacrifice in order to ensure that terror acts can be prevented?
At the same time, however, it is also encouraging to see how journalists are not only standing up for their craft and their peers but for those who they serve by informing them, namely the public. However, while the majority of journalists seem to support their peers, some are being publicly criticized by fellow journalists. Mr. Greenwald, who was the liaison for whistleblower Edward Snowden for The Guardian, has come under intense criticism, just like Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has been inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June 2012.
The news media must not let the government, let alone some of their own intimidate them. The current events shed light on an important dynamic that is vital to the functioning of our so-called democratic society. We need the news media to ask the tough questions and to investigate where it hurts, because this is the only way we as a society can exert pressure and influence on the government. How are we, as a public, supposed to make our voices heard if we don’t find out what is going wrong?
I firmly believe it is the duty of our profession to collaborate with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden and give them a platform to release their revelations. This is not to say that everything that whistleblower want to make public is ethically or morally defensible. There is certainly a fine line between disclosing something that the public has a right to know about and an information that is not essential and/or could put someone’s life in danger.
Yet, in the midst of shrinking budgets and concerns about quality, investigative journalism, the press needs to stand together and show authorities and governments that acts of intimidation will not prevent it from unveiling what every authority fears: the truth.