The article highlights issues and actions that can be regarded as journalism. The article describes reporter’s privileges. In addition, the article elaborates issues regarding the first amendment based privileges of reporters. It further explores and tries to justify why WikiLeaks cannot be regarded as a journalism organization. Moreover, it portrays the impact that WikiLeaks has had on the rejection of certain bills regarding freedom of speech and how it might affect future decision on proposed bills.
Reporter’s Privileges
The law requires reporters and journalism organizations to follow the rule of law, as they are still the same as the public (Peters 671). However, journalists can refuse to reveal their sources of information in case of legal proceedings. The question now comes is that who qualifies to use these privileges as a reporter or journalist. The federal courts and Congress recognize that protection of sources is vital to ensure that lives are not in danger. The federal courts use the First Amendment to ensure the reporters’ privileges are upheld. The First Amendment Based Privilege allows reporters to refuse to reveal their sources. Forcing reporters to reveal their sources may make people stop communicating with the reporters and in the process, impeding information flow. (Peters 673).
Certain basic criteria need to be followed by the government officials before subpoenaing a witness. Firstly, the government officials must show that the information required is relevant to the specified government inquiry, they must show that the witness clearly has the needed information, and they must show that means of obtaining information do not violate the First Amendment liberties (Peters 673).
Qualification to invoke the Reporter’s privilege
According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for a person or organization to use the privilege, the applicant or the journalist has to be engaged in investigative reporting; the purpose of the reporting is to release it to the public and the claimant has to be involved in gathering news. In addition, the Third Circuit does not recognize anyone with a website or a page as a journalist (Peters 674).
Furthermore, certain principles need to be considered before an entity or an individual can be allowed to invoke the First Amendment privileges. These include; medium conveying the message cannot be solely used to regard someone or an entity as a journalist; the person seeking to invoke the First Amendment must have the goal of releasing the information to the public; the process of obtaining information must satisfy the requirements of investigative reporting and the content being released must be news (Peters 676).
Investigative reporting
Investigative reporting takes into account analyzing, verifying and writing news in reference to its significance to the society (Peters 676). Investigative reporting is more than dumping of documents. The information has to be extensively researched, and the reporter has to make a comprehensible story from all the information researched (Peters 677). This information should be conveyed in a manner, which a person who has no prior information of the subject will easily be able to follow. This process is evident in Cusamano verses Microsoft where the High Court allowed two professors to invoke the First Amendment privilege so that they could not reveal their interviews, which were conducted for purposes of compiling and reporting their results concerning management practices in the internet technology industry (Peters 678).
Journalism should be directed towards minimizing harm
According to journalism ethics, before any information or news is released to the public, the contents need to be evaluated to ascertain if they will harm any person. For these purpose journalists prepare a list of persons to be affected is prepared, draw up expected consequences, consider the benefit or harm the information may bring and finally choose an outcome that will benefit most people or harm the least number of persons.
Congressional Shield Bills
Two bills that have been adversely affected by the WikiLeaks issue include the H.R. 985 and S. 448. Both bills were proposing to maintain free flow of information to the public. The future bills will depend on how the WikiLeaks issue turns out. The shield bill stipulates that the federal law may not compel a covered person to make available statements essentially to protect public interests. The shield gives a description of a covered person, which allows an organization such as WikiLeaks to seek First Amendments privileges.
Protection of news
In this context, protection of news refers to the safeguarding of information sources in instances where a journalist may be subpoenaed where there are legal situations to testify and reveal persons who provide information. In addition, protection of news follows what is stipulated by the First Amendment privileges. If the sources are not protected, information may not be available for same situations in the future, as people will stop talking. This was the case when WikiLeaks released confidential documents about the U.S. war in Afghanistan. As a result, some of the sources had to be moved to safer locations as their lives were in danger. The scenario of protection of news is illustrated.
Contempt power
Contempt power is a concept that illustrates disrespect for the rule of law or in this case not respecting ethics of journalism. Despite WikiLeaks continuing to declare that they followed journalism and ethical principles, Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, threatened to release all documents to the public incase the site would be shutdown. This he declared without considering the consequences that might result from his actions.
The actions of WikiLeaks are justifiable to some extent. For instance, disseminating of information such as those concerning corrupt leaders helps to bring closure to the Kenyans. WikiLeaks claims that they contacted pentagon for assistance before releasing the first bunch of documents. Although this is questionable, their claims need to be considered. It is noted that the website did try to minimize harm before releasing documents on the Iraq war. Furthermore, WikiLeaks has made efforts to ensure that they comply with what constitutes journalism. For instance, they conducted their activities for no financial gain, but as the state requires for an organization to be considered a journalist entity there has to be financial gain. WikiLeaks started compensating their employees in order to be considered a journalist organization.
Moreover, by releasing information concerning certain issues such as how prisoners are treated at Guantanamo bay, websites that have been blacklisted by Australian law, WikiLeaks sole purpose was to disseminate this information to the public, which is in line with what the H.R. 985 specifications. However, WikiLeaks should be held accountable for releasing information that may result to putting civilian’s lives at risk. Other newspaper that published information concerning Afghanistan took the liberty to minimize the potential ham that the documents could cause. This was contrary to what WikiLeaks did. Documents released by WikiLeaks to the public were not altered.
Work Cited
Peters, Jonathan, Wikileaks Would Not Qualify to claim Federal Reporter’s Privilege in Any
Form. heinonline. n.p., n.d. Web. 26 Aug. 2009.
