Andrea Hickerson on Transparency, Media and the Internet

What is your opinion of the New York Times writing articles based on excerpts from the WikiLeaks trove of classified U.S. military material?

AH: I think The New York Times' use and access to the WikiLeaks documents is potentially a turning point in journalism. Relying on documents obtained by a third party frees the Times from the burden of maintaining the secrecy of the identity of the original source. The NYT can focus on the veracity of the documents provided and translating their significance to the American public, rather than spending a tremendous amount of time defending the original source, which, in this case, would probably involve a protracted legal entanglement with the U.S. government.

That said, I think the significance of the content of the documents themselves is interesting but not explosive. There is not a whole lot of new information in the documents, they are dated, and they were not highly classified to begin with. At the very least I think the documents help portray the war in Afghanistan which has typically received much less media coverage than the war in Iraq.

In many other major investigative projects for the media, the whistleblower is anonymous. In what ways are anonymous tips and data desirable? In what ways are they out of line?

AH: Anonymous tips are rarely desirable. Using anonymous sources asks consumers to take a leap of faith and trust that journalists have good and reliable information. Unless the journalist has a stellar reputation ... such as Seymour Hersh, for example ... readers are probably less inclined to seriously entertain the claims of an anonymous source. Unfortunately the public typically has little trust in journalists to report the news as dispassionately as possible. The public does not know that journalists only use anonymous sources as a last resort when they can't find another way to authenticate specific information.

Considering that the head of WikiLeaks is as secretive as the military and intelligence organizations he is so critical of, and is virtually unavailable and unaccountable, what are your thoughts about the Times working with such a person and giving him and his group imprimatur?
AH: I don't think the reputation of Julian Assange is particularly relevant to the New York Times. The Times' interest is in the authenticity of the documents and the story they tell. As long as the data or information a source provides is accurate, the character of the source or whistleblower is irrelevant.

The Times of London reported that the names of hundreds of Afghanis who had cooperated with the U.S. military, plus which villages they lived in, were contained in the WikiLeaks documents, thus targeting them for extermination by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The New York Times refused to link directly to WikiLeaks mainly for this reason. Despite this precaution, do you think newspaper reporters are qualified to determine or guarantee that revealing military secrets would not endanger soldiers and civilians?

AH: First, I agree with the NYT decision not to link to these documents with names. Whether or not journalists are always qualified to determine the potential harm some of their stories might cause is impossible to tell. Any ethical person, I hope, would be concerned about potential harm, and accordingly weigh the implications of their story with the public's right to know what the government or a company does prior to publication.

In general, however, I would argue that the burden of proof is on the government to offer journalists guidelines on what information may disrupt national security. Too often what issues constitute a "matter of national security" is not always clear. They could do a better job of explaining ... even vaguely ... exactly how certain information beyond the obvious naming names and strategic locations might harm U.S. interests and the American public.

The Obama administration is pursuing legal action against New York Times reporter James Risen for revealing U.S. intelligence secrets during the Bush administration, and it also obtained an indictment of a former top National Security Agency official for providing classified information to a Baltimore Sun reporter. Your thoughts?

AH: That the Obama administration is taking legal action in both of these cases is unfortunate. Before becoming president, Obama actually spoke in favor of a federal shield law. The fact that he no longer supports such a law and is aggressively pursuing action against Risen is disappointing. Retaliation against journalists reporting on the government may lead journalists to avoid investigative reporting and to engage in self-censorship. This threatens one of the press's basic functions ... to keep check on the government. This in turn leads to a less informed public and the impression of an all-powerful government.

Two San Francisco sportswriters became famous for writing stories revealing secret grand jury information concerning baseball star Barry Bonds and his use of steroids. Your thoughts?

AH: The reporting of San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams is exceptional. Rarely do we find stories so consistently and meticulously reported over time. It is hard to understand why the government so actively pursued their notes given that no issues of national security were involved. In an editorial in September 2006, the Chronicle argued the real issue was control. The government does not like their secrets to get out ... regardless of what they are. Perhaps this same argument applies to the WikiLeaks documents. At any rate, the government's dogged pursuit of Fainaru-Wada and Williams probably inspires fear in other journalists who might have considered publishing similar information on topics with even greater implications for the American public.

Considering that the above questions deal with the press printing military secrets, intelligence secrets and grand jury secrets, is there too much power of the press? Are there any limits on what the press should be able to do? Are there any limits on how transparent the government should be?

AH: As I alluded to earlier, journalists are not just subject to government censorship, but self-censorship as well. The press self-censors in part because it needs to maintain good relationships with government officials. Government officials are top sources for story ideas and general comment. Because I see the relationship between the press and the government as give-and-take, I do not think the press has too much power.

Government transparency is a different issue. My default belief is, "This is a democracy. The public has a right to know." If the government does not want to share information, it needs to reassure the public and the press why it feels it cannot or should not.

Some journalists contend that too often the government abuses the classification of material and slaps a secrecy tag to cover up wrongdoing or mistakes by government officials or others with power, and investigative reporting by the press corrects that abuse and informs the public. Your thoughts?

AH: I think this is a fair concern. Perhaps the government's reaction to the Chronicle reporters is a case in point. The government would certainly disagree with the old adage "Any publicity is good publicity." Elected officials in particular stand to lose something with the documentation of wrongdoing or misdeeds. All I can hope is that journalists continue to pound the pavement and remain dedicated to long, well-sourced, data-driven investigative pieces that ultimately do expose mistakes and wrongdoing so such mistakes can be avoided and not repeated or allowed to fester.

(This is Prof. Hickerson's second appearance in OurBlook ... welcome back! She's an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at RIT. She earned a B.A. in journalism from Syracuse, an M.A. in journalism and an M.A. in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Texas and a Ph.D. in communication from the University of Washington.)