Press Freedom Index 2014

[The Brain]

What does whistleblowers in government have to do with freedom of the press?

[Sheilbh]

What does whistleblowers in government have to do with freedom of the press?

The US has investigated leaks far more aggressively under Obama than previous Presidents. Part of that is that they've extended their investigations to the media companies and the journalists (at least one has been a 'co-conspirator') which has allowed them to look at call data, to seize emails and so on.

As in the UK with Elveden I think it's likely to produce a chilling effect. I think trying to shut down leaks/public corruption is justifiable. I'm far more dubious when that starts to move into investigation or prosecution of the media.

[Viking]

What does whistleblowers in government have to do with freedom of the press?

The US has investigated leaks far more aggressively under Obama than previous Presidents. Part of that is that they've extended their investigations to the media companies and the journalists (at least one has been a 'co-conspirator') which has allowed them to look at call data, to seize emails and so on.

As in the UK with Elveden I think it's likely to produce a chilling effect. I think trying to shut down leaks/public corruption is justifiable. I'm far more dubious when that starts to move into investigation or prosecution of the media.

Publishing private information or state secrets is not an issue of the freedom of the press.

[The Brain]

What does whistleblowers in government have to do with freedom of the press?

The US has investigated leaks far more aggressively under Obama than previous Presidents. Part of that is that they've extended their investigations to the media companies and the journalists (at least one has been a 'co-conspirator') which has allowed them to look at call data, to seize emails and so on.

As in the UK with Elveden I think it's likely to produce a chilling effect. I think trying to shut down leaks/public corruption is justifiable. I'm far more dubious when that starts to move into investigation or prosecution of the media.

Publishing private information or state secrets is not an issue of the freedom of the press.

[Ed Anger]

They're snitches.

Who need stiches.

[Sheilbh]

Publishing private information or state secrets is not an issue of the freedom of the press.

Sure it is - in general. In the UK I don't think there's any public interest in publishing details of someone's incarceration or health records. But in the case of crime reporting, or in the US national security reporting I think there is a public interest. What's more it's the journalists job.

Take the example of the co-conspirator. In that case a Fox News hack got solidly sourced information from a defence contractor (originally born in South Korea) about North Korea's nuclear program. I think it's probably appropriate to go after the leak. But I don't see what the journalist has actually done wrong. I certainly don't see what he's done that's enough to justify investigators getting access to a journalists call records or private emails.

We give that sort of thing a pass because the UK and the US have a history of a free press. In any other country I think we'd consider it state intimidation of the press.

[dps]

Publishing private information or state secrets is not an issue of the freedom of the press.

Sure it is - in general. In the UK I don't think there's any public interest in publishing details of someone's incarceration or health records. But in the case of crime reporting, or in the US national security reporting I think there is a public interest. What's more it's the journalists job.

Take the example of the co-conspirator. In that case a Fox News hack got solidly sourced information from a defence contractor (originally born in South Korea) about North Korea's nuclear program. I think it's probably appropriate to go after the leak. But I don't see what the journalist has actually done wrong. I certainly don't see what he's done that's enough to justify investigators getting access to a journalists call records or private emails.

We give that sort of thing a pass because the UK and the US have a history of a free press. In any other country I think we'd consider it state intimidation of the press.

I think there's a problem if a government official sells information to the press, as you stated upthread has been happening in the UK.  The trouble is, in that case the official has accepted a bribe, and I don't see how you can go after them for accepting the bribe unless you're also willing to go after the person who bribed them.

[Ed Anger]

Bradley Manning should be shanked in prison.

[Norgy]

I stopped being butthurt by these indices about the same time I stopped taking the Nobel Peace Prize seriously.

Not stopped enough being butthurt to feel the need to post that, which has nothing to do with American lack of press freedom, though.

Score one for press freedom.

[Admiral Yi]

Not stopped enough being butthurt to feel the need to post that, which has nothing to do with American lack of press freedom, though.

Score one for press freedom.

Sure.  Just butthurt enough to mention that I am not at all butthurt.

[Ed Anger]

The rape threads are all on the first page.

[CountDeMoney]

The US has investigated leaks far more aggressively under Obama than previous Presidents. Part of that is that they've extended their investigations to the media companies and the journalists (at least one has been a 'co-conspirator') which has allowed them to look at call data, to seize emails and so on.

That's how you sometimes have to work an investigation:  from both ends.  Surprised you didn't know that, Mr. Bonnie Prince Scotland Holmes in a can.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's a problem if a government official sells information to the press, as you stated upthread has been happening in the UK.  The trouble is, in that case the official has accepted a bribe, and I don't see how you can go after them for accepting the bribe unless you're also willing to go after the person who bribed them.

Yeah, sure. I have issues with some of these cases because the bribe is actually the journalist plying them with drinks and dinners which is, again, their job rather than a straight-up bribe.

However Elveden is a little wider in that it's 'misconduct in public office' which includes revealing personal data even if you do it gratuitously. Again there's nothing necessarily wrong with those prosecutions, I think there's something very wrong (which is why they've so far failed) in prosecuting journalists for 'conspiracy to cause misconduct in public office'. I also think there's a balance to be struck, that we're not getting right. It isn't in the public interest if police officers etc don't respect personal data or confidentiality, on the other I also don't think it's in the public interest if all contact except through official channels is severed. I think it's a real worry.

I think the situation with national security reporting in the US is somewhat similar in that, it seems to me, that the Obama administration is getting that public interest balance wrong.

[Viking]

Publishing private information or state secrets is not an issue of the freedom of the press.

Sure it is - in general. In the UK I don't think there's any public interest in publishing details of someone's incarceration or health records. But in the case of crime reporting, or in the US national security reporting I think there is a public interest. What's more it's the journalists job.

Take the example of the co-conspirator. In that case a Fox News hack got solidly sourced information from a defence contractor (originally born in South Korea) about North Korea's nuclear program. I think it's probably appropriate to go after the leak. But I don't see what the journalist has actually done wrong. I certainly don't see what he's done that's enough to justify investigators getting access to a journalists call records or private emails.

We give that sort of thing a pass because the UK and the US have a history of a free press. In any other country I think we'd consider it state intimidation of the press.

The thing is the examples you point out are ones that a court can decree to be made public or the results of public courts of law. Traditionally the way stuff like this has been dealt with is by after the fact having the government decide if it can justify itself for prosecuting people who expose this stuff to their voters.

Freedom of the press is the freedom of conscience, not an exception from the law. 

[Sheilbh]

The thing is the examples you point out are ones that a court can decree to be made public or the results of public courts of law. Traditionally the way stuff like this has been dealt with is by after the fact having the government decide if it can justify itself for prosecuting people who expose this stuff to their voters.

Sorry I don't follow this?

Freedom of the press is the freedom of conscience, not an exception from the law.

I don't think that's true anymore, if it ever was. I think the UK and the US generally get a pass on this from many because they're countries with a tradition of respecting the free press and of having a robust press. But there are all sorts of countries that use tax investigations, or audits of media companies, or investigations of a journalist's sources to restrict what information a journalist can print. I think the Obama administration's approach to national security leaks (and I'd exclude Manning and Snowden which are different) and Elveden isn't that far from that approach. Hopefully they're aberrations, but for now I think the US and UK have both restricted freedom of the press through the use of too wide criminal investigations into the media and I don't think it's in the public interest.