Matt Duffy 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?

MD: I think the newspaper would have been hard-pressed to ignore the information that WikiLeaks provided early. The classified material was also given to two other media outlets early and appeared online a month later. The New York Times acted responsibly by not linking to the original material and also by withholding information that could have caused harm to individuals in the war theater.

In hindsight, though, the information contained in the reports appears to actually contribute little that we didn't already know. The Times may have done us a service by looking at the information and relaying it in summary form. The summary shows that there are no "smoking guns" ... no signs of widespread abuse or sinister deeds ... just a run-of-the-mill, messy war. Given this fact, the New York Times may wish to be more selective moving forward in giving any more attention to the documents WikiLeaks chooses to release.

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?

MD: Anonymous tips are essential in generating good journalism. Such tips are useful because they help track down on-the-record, verifiable information that can be used in print. Sometimes news organizations do receive documents that can be verified and used directly in reporting. In the WikiLeaks case, the verifiability of the information is not really in question. No one from the military is suggesting that these documents aren't authentic. While they came from an anonymous source, they don't carry the same credibility problem as a quote, for instance, from a "senior military official who requested anonymity."

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?

MD: I am troubled by the Times working with the WikiLeaks organization and its founder's seeming lack of moral accountability. However, I think the position of WikiLeaks became more evident after the publication of this material. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has since burnished his reputation as an amoral figure who seems unwilling to accept that his actions in publishing these documents can have deathly implications for people assisting NATO efforts in Afghanistan. In the future, the New York Times should be less willing to work with him and they would certainly be justified in avoiding his organization.

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?

MD: I don't think newspapers are qualified to guarantee that revealing military secrets won't endanger soldiers and civilians. At times, however, revealing secrets can be ethically justifiable ... particularly if you're following a utilitarianism model in which the "greater good" of society is considered. In order for democracies to function effectively, the public may need to know about information that the government doesn't want us to know about. (The Washington Post's exposure of secret CIA prisons strikes me as an example where the newspaper was ethically justified in its reporting.) However, newspapers should be taking this role in determining the release of information very seriously and should only be disseminating such information in rare, ethically justified situations. (I don't think the classified WikiLeaks information rises to that level.) Of course, the government is well within its right to prosecute and investigate the people who leak secrets. In this way, the balance between secrecy and dissemination can be maintained in a healthy fashion ... creating a happy medium.

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?

MD: The Risen case is a good example of a situation in which the reporter doesn't necessarily deserve any protection for revealing classified information. From my understanding, Risen released the information ... which basically criticizes the CIA's handling of Iran's nuclear program ... in a book that he authored. Such a disclosure would be more justifiable had it been made in the New York Times, as part of regular reporting. By releasing it in a book, the act seems less like a public service and more like a self-aggrandizing move to make money from book sales. Even if Risen emerges unscathed from any legal action, the move sends an important message ... releasing national security secrets is serious business and reporters should only be doing it thoughtfully and for the right reasons.

The other case is trickier. The information released is about wasteful spending in the National Security Agency, a notoriously secret organization. Going back to the "greater good" justification, one can certainly argue that the leaker and the Baltimore Sun could meet this standard ... that the public has a right to know about possible waste of its tax money. Still, the NSA employee did violate the law, so he may have to face the consequences.

The courts will likely weigh the bigger picture and ethical justifications in both these cases ... toward another happy medium.

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?

MD: Another interesting case. Barry Bonds using steroids is a huge story ... and journalists did the public a favor in publicizing it. Still, grand jury proceedings are supposed to remain secret for a good reason ... to secure a free flow of information during that process. So, one could argue that releasing such information does damage to the underpinnings of the legal system. I would have rather seen the reporters take the information from the grand jury testimony and use it to find another way to get the story on-the-record.

In the end, the government tried to find the identity of the grand jury leaker and the reporters were threatened with jail. But, the leaker revealed himself (a lawyer for a defendant) and the reporters were spared. I'd say this was the perfect outcome. No reporter went to jail, but journalists will pause before printing secret information again.

The important element in all these cases is for journalists to pause and think before they act. I know (from my own experience) that journalists often just think "First Amendment" as the beginning and end of their ethical reasoning. More care should be put into considering the legal system and potential ramifications before rushing to press.

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?

MD: I think there are limits to both entities ... the legal system and public pressure. The courts have overseen many cases which have helped shape the press' approach toward publishing secrets. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that the government couldn't prohibit the press from printing certain information ... even if it was regarded as top secret. However, in the Plame Affair, the court ruled that reporters do not possess an absolute privilege to withhold the sources of anonymous information. These two cases ... and many others ... help shape the balance between the press and the government.

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?

MD: There is some validity to these journalists' contention. Again, it's important to find a happy medium between allowing the government to operate with some secrecy while keeping tabs on their operation via a vigilant watchdog press.

(Dr. Duffy, having obtained his Ph.D. from Georgia State University, now is teaching journalism at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi. His thesis was on anonymous sources. This is his second time on our site ... welcome back, Matt.)