The Code simply says in general, journalists have a professional obligation to protect confidential sources of information. Full stop! Those few words are advising Kenyan journalists on the most controversial ethical principle that is still a subject of discussions among lawyers, academics, politicians and of course journalists all over the world from America to Britain and even here in our own country.
Those who want to force journalists to disrespect confidentiality in their profession and compel them to reveal the sources of their information by using the powers of the court often argue there is nothing special about journalists as citizens of a country. After all courts often force doctors, priests and lawyers to reveal information they could very well claim came into their possession through “professional confidentiality”. The only trouble is that when journalists succumb to court pressure and reveal their secret sources of information they literally close doors to future whistleblowers. People reveal news to journalists for the public good. They therefore need to be protected.
The information revealed to journalists is not exactly the same as that which comes to lawyers, doctors or clergymen in the course of their profession. The confidential information about people other professionals have is normally of personal nature while journalists’ confidential sources will always reveal a bombshell of public interest that has been kept secret by some powerful individuals or institutions. Many journalists of honour and integrity are ready to go to jail rather than reveal sources of their stories if they were given to them in confidence. One such journalist is Judith Miller of The New York Times who was sent to jail on July, 2005, for refusing to reveal the sources of a story she was investigating about the White House and the CIA which she was about to write. Not what she had written! But refused to even reveal the sources of an unpublished story and ended up in jail. What a great journalist!
By refusing to reveal the sources of her story she was held in contempt of court. At that time, the Judge, Thomas F. Hogan of US District court in Washington said: “We have a classic confrontation between freedom of the press and the right of the government to investigate criminal activity.” Those words will go down in history as words that paint the picture of a dilemma between courts that want to punish criminals and journalist who want to expose them.
But who in cases like this one are the real criminals – the journalists who want to expose a few crooks in powerful positions in governments and protect their sources or those who want to punish people who reveal criminal secrets to journalists? There are some serious questions courts must ask themselves before they rush to jail journalists who come up with exposés that reveal skeletons in some powerful people’s cupboards through confidential sources. One such question is posed by Dr. John Coulter, a political journalist with The Irish Daily Star who asks: “How else are journalists expected to gain bona fide information from confidential sources about State’s alleged illegal activities unless they give a cast-iron guarantee of anonymity to those primary sources?”
Dr. Coulter who is also a senior lecturer in journalism in further and higher education in North Ireland say in North Ireland, for example, investigating all allegation of collusion between the British security forces and Protestant death squads has become an ethical minefield for journalists. In that area, he says, journalists have to handle the issue of their confidential sources with the same delicate professionalism that an army bomb expert would deal with the volatile bottle of nitro-glycerin. In such scenarios, journalists need first to address the moral dilemma: are they investigative journalists first, or citizens of the State first? They cannot jump between the two. If they decide it is the latter, then they should not be giving confidential sources worthless guarantees that at some point in the future they will abandon, says Dr. Coulter.
One of the most recent examples of violation of confidentiality was when Dr. David Kelly told British journalists that Tony Blair’s claim of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was “sexed up”. When Andrew Gilligan of the BBC revealed his source the poor doctor committed suicide. According to the BBC weapons expert, Dr. David Kelly, was thrust into media spotlight after being identified in newspapers as the man the government believed was a source for a BBC report on Iraq. The scientist was used to talking to journalists behind the scenes – but he became a key figure in the row between the government and the BBC over claims that Downing Street “sexed up” a dossier on Iraq’s weapons capacity. After being publicly named, the 59-year-old denied being Andrew Gilligan’s source; but two days later he was found dead – a victim of betrayal. The BBC confirmed on July 20, 2002 that the scientist was their principal contact.
Before he died Dr. Kelly told the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee that was investigating the whole affairs that one lesson he had learned was never to talk to journalists. Commenting on the Dr. Kelly affair, Tim Crook, a senior Lecturer in Media Law and Ethics, at Goldsmiths, University of London said: “This has been a bloody affair for journalism and governance. The ethics of media and politics have been subjected to forensic trial never seen before…The British media has been subjecting itself to an agonizing ritual of soul-searching and bitter recrimination.” Andrew Gilligan and the BBC, to their credit, he said, have shown humility in admitting their mistakes (of exposing Dr. Kelly as their source).
Despite its claim to be the world’s freest country, the US is probably the one place where reporters constantly face federal pressure to reveal confidential sources whenever they come up with sensitive exposés. May be the most famous confidential source of news which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon is now the well known “Deep Throat”. He anonymously revealed sensitive information about the Watergate scandal in 1970s to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post. Though Woodward had vowed never to reveal Deep Throat’s name until after his (Deep Throat’s) death, he only managed to steadfastly and courageously keep his promise until June, 2005, when W. Mart Felt made his own identity public himself. Woodward as a journalist was upright.
Journalistically confidentiality can be categorized at four levels:
(a) On Record when information is given openly to be quoted and attributed with the consent of the source.
(b) On Background when information is provided to be attributed to a person’s position such as the “government spokesman”. Very often information given on background is accompanied by the phrase “speaking on condition of anonymity.”
(c) Deep background in information is normally provided to be included in a story without clearly attributing the source. For example “a source close to Mr. Murungaru says these days he is very gloomy since he was denied UK visa.”
(d) Off the Record information which is strictly off the record and may not be used in any way in news articles, and because of that journalists are frequently wary of accepting such information. It is sometime used to point journalists in the direction of other sources or simply to speak frankly on a personal level.
Confidentiality in journalism hinges on two critical aspects: firstly the PROMISE journalists make to their sources NEVER to expose them so that they in turn can express their feelings and reveal confidential FACTS without any fear. Secondly the fact revealed must be so vital to the story and cannot be obtained from any other sources. Some codes of ethics are very clear on this issue. That one of Malta, for example, clearly says the right to information is one of the fundamental human rights in a free and democratic society (and) for this reason in both print and broadcast journalism , journalists should carryout their duties with great sense responsibility and should be guided by the public right to information. The code urges journalists to respect confidentiality of the source of information, when this is requested.
Confidentiality must be promised only with the intention of honouring that promise, it adds. In the absence of clear and urgent need to observe confidentiality, it says, every source of information should be identified. Journalists should also ensure the truth, as far as possible, of information given in the supreme public interest. No one sums up the whole issue of confidentiality better than Geneva Overholser, who is a professor at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism. She says: “There are two powerful reasons behind reporters’ refusal to expose source. To be trustworthy, one must keep one’s word. And more specific to journalism, sources are the lifeblood of news gathering. In a world of secrecy and spin, the person who gives good information is better than gold. From Watergate to the latest corporate whistleblowers, the benefits flowing to the public from this pact of confidentiality are invaluable.”
Overholser who is a former editor of The Des Moines Register and an ombudsman of The Washington Post as well as a member of The New York Times editorial board admits that at the core of the pact lies the problem of anonymity. The same tool that exposes wrong doing, she says, can foster it and journalists’ abuse of anonymous sources steadily undermines (the profession). But it is incontestable, she goes on, that some information vital to the democratic public will reach it only through the protection of confidentiality.
Judith Miller was so courageous that she went to jail rather than reveal the source of her story. By doing so she became emblematic of valiant media as well as gaining what Norman Solomon, a well known and respected media critic, calls stratospheric fame. On July 6, 2005, a federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller for contempt of court for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s name. New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller called Miller’s imprisonment “a chilling conclusion to an utterly confounded case.” Publisher and Chairman of New York Times Company, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the company would do all that it could to ensure Judy’s safety and continue to fight for the principle that led her to make a most difficult and honourable choice.
The story that led to Judy’s imprisonment originated from the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Palme. Palme was identified as a CIA operative citing two senior Bush administrative officials as sources. Palme exposure followed her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s public challenge of the White House claim that Saddam Hussein’s government tried to obtain uranium from Africa in an effort to develop a nuclear weapons programme.
Wilson, who wrote a July6, 2003 piece in New York Times on the matter, has said his wife’s name was leaked as retribution. Miller had gathered all this information but was asked by court to reveal her sources even before she published the story. She refused and went to jail instead. How many Kenyan journalists would go to jail honourably like Judith Miller? You can count them on the fingers of one hand!
Those who want to force journalists to disrespect confidentiality in their profession and compel them to reveal the sources of their information by using the powers of the court often argue there is nothing special about journalists as citizens of a country. After all courts often force doctors, priests and lawyers to reveal information they could very well claim came into their possession through “professional confidentiality”. The only trouble is that when journalists succumb to court pressure and reveal their secret sources of information they literally close doors to future whistleblowers. People reveal news to journalists for the public good. They therefore need to be protected.
The information revealed to journalists is not exactly the same as that which comes to lawyers, doctors or clergymen in the course of their profession. The confidential information about people other professionals have is normally of personal nature while journalists’ confidential sources will always reveal a bombshell of public interest that has been kept secret by some powerful individuals or institutions. Many journalists of honour and integrity are ready to go to jail rather than reveal sources of their stories if they were given to them in confidence. One such journalist is Judith Miller of The New York Times who was sent to jail on July, 2005, for refusing to reveal the sources of a story she was investigating about the White House and the CIA which she was about to write. Not what she had written! But refused to even reveal the sources of an unpublished story and ended up in jail. What a great journalist!
By refusing to reveal the sources of her story she was held in contempt of court. At that time, the Judge, Thomas F. Hogan of US District court in Washington said: “We have a classic confrontation between freedom of the press and the right of the government to investigate criminal activity.” Those words will go down in history as words that paint the picture of a dilemma between courts that want to punish criminals and journalist who want to expose them.
But who in cases like this one are the real criminals – the journalists who want to expose a few crooks in powerful positions in governments and protect their sources or those who want to punish people who reveal criminal secrets to journalists? There are some serious questions courts must ask themselves before they rush to jail journalists who come up with exposés that reveal skeletons in some powerful people’s cupboards through confidential sources. One such question is posed by Dr. John Coulter, a political journalist with The Irish Daily Star who asks: “How else are journalists expected to gain bona fide information from confidential sources about State’s alleged illegal activities unless they give a cast-iron guarantee of anonymity to those primary sources?”
Dr. Coulter who is also a senior lecturer in journalism in further and higher education in North Ireland say in North Ireland, for example, investigating all allegation of collusion between the British security forces and Protestant death squads has become an ethical minefield for journalists. In that area, he says, journalists have to handle the issue of their confidential sources with the same delicate professionalism that an army bomb expert would deal with the volatile bottle of nitro-glycerin. In such scenarios, journalists need first to address the moral dilemma: are they investigative journalists first, or citizens of the State first? They cannot jump between the two. If they decide it is the latter, then they should not be giving confidential sources worthless guarantees that at some point in the future they will abandon, says Dr. Coulter.
One of the most recent examples of violation of confidentiality was when Dr. David Kelly told British journalists that Tony Blair’s claim of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was “sexed up”. When Andrew Gilligan of the BBC revealed his source the poor doctor committed suicide. According to the BBC weapons expert, Dr. David Kelly, was thrust into media spotlight after being identified in newspapers as the man the government believed was a source for a BBC report on Iraq. The scientist was used to talking to journalists behind the scenes – but he became a key figure in the row between the government and the BBC over claims that Downing Street “sexed up” a dossier on Iraq’s weapons capacity. After being publicly named, the 59-year-old denied being Andrew Gilligan’s source; but two days later he was found dead – a victim of betrayal. The BBC confirmed on July 20, 2002 that the scientist was their principal contact.
Before he died Dr. Kelly told the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee that was investigating the whole affairs that one lesson he had learned was never to talk to journalists. Commenting on the Dr. Kelly affair, Tim Crook, a senior Lecturer in Media Law and Ethics, at Goldsmiths, University of London said: “This has been a bloody affair for journalism and governance. The ethics of media and politics have been subjected to forensic trial never seen before…The British media has been subjecting itself to an agonizing ritual of soul-searching and bitter recrimination.” Andrew Gilligan and the BBC, to their credit, he said, have shown humility in admitting their mistakes (of exposing Dr. Kelly as their source).
Despite its claim to be the world’s freest country, the US is probably the one place where reporters constantly face federal pressure to reveal confidential sources whenever they come up with sensitive exposés. May be the most famous confidential source of news which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon is now the well known “Deep Throat”. He anonymously revealed sensitive information about the Watergate scandal in 1970s to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post. Though Woodward had vowed never to reveal Deep Throat’s name until after his (Deep Throat’s) death, he only managed to steadfastly and courageously keep his promise until June, 2005, when W. Mart Felt made his own identity public himself. Woodward as a journalist was upright.
Journalistically confidentiality can be categorized at four levels:
(a) On Record when information is given openly to be quoted and attributed with the consent of the source.
(b) On Background when information is provided to be attributed to a person’s position such as the “government spokesman”. Very often information given on background is accompanied by the phrase “speaking on condition of anonymity.”
(c) Deep background in information is normally provided to be included in a story without clearly attributing the source. For example “a source close to Mr. Murungaru says these days he is very gloomy since he was denied UK visa.”
(d) Off the Record information which is strictly off the record and may not be used in any way in news articles, and because of that journalists are frequently wary of accepting such information. It is sometime used to point journalists in the direction of other sources or simply to speak frankly on a personal level.
Confidentiality in journalism hinges on two critical aspects: firstly the PROMISE journalists make to their sources NEVER to expose them so that they in turn can express their feelings and reveal confidential FACTS without any fear. Secondly the fact revealed must be so vital to the story and cannot be obtained from any other sources. Some codes of ethics are very clear on this issue. That one of Malta, for example, clearly says the right to information is one of the fundamental human rights in a free and democratic society (and) for this reason in both print and broadcast journalism , journalists should carryout their duties with great sense responsibility and should be guided by the public right to information. The code urges journalists to respect confidentiality of the source of information, when this is requested.
Confidentiality must be promised only with the intention of honouring that promise, it adds. In the absence of clear and urgent need to observe confidentiality, it says, every source of information should be identified. Journalists should also ensure the truth, as far as possible, of information given in the supreme public interest. No one sums up the whole issue of confidentiality better than Geneva Overholser, who is a professor at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism. She says: “There are two powerful reasons behind reporters’ refusal to expose source. To be trustworthy, one must keep one’s word. And more specific to journalism, sources are the lifeblood of news gathering. In a world of secrecy and spin, the person who gives good information is better than gold. From Watergate to the latest corporate whistleblowers, the benefits flowing to the public from this pact of confidentiality are invaluable.”
Overholser who is a former editor of The Des Moines Register and an ombudsman of The Washington Post as well as a member of The New York Times editorial board admits that at the core of the pact lies the problem of anonymity. The same tool that exposes wrong doing, she says, can foster it and journalists’ abuse of anonymous sources steadily undermines (the profession). But it is incontestable, she goes on, that some information vital to the democratic public will reach it only through the protection of confidentiality.
Judith Miller was so courageous that she went to jail rather than reveal the source of her story. By doing so she became emblematic of valiant media as well as gaining what Norman Solomon, a well known and respected media critic, calls stratospheric fame. On July 6, 2005, a federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller for contempt of court for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative’s name. New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller called Miller’s imprisonment “a chilling conclusion to an utterly confounded case.” Publisher and Chairman of New York Times Company, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the company would do all that it could to ensure Judy’s safety and continue to fight for the principle that led her to make a most difficult and honourable choice.
The story that led to Judy’s imprisonment originated from the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Palme. Palme was identified as a CIA operative citing two senior Bush administrative officials as sources. Palme exposure followed her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s public challenge of the White House claim that Saddam Hussein’s government tried to obtain uranium from Africa in an effort to develop a nuclear weapons programme.
Wilson, who wrote a July6, 2003 piece in New York Times on the matter, has said his wife’s name was leaked as retribution. Miller had gathered all this information but was asked by court to reveal her sources even before she published the story. She refused and went to jail instead. How many Kenyan journalists would go to jail honourably like Judith Miller? You can count them on the fingers of one hand!
No comments:
Post a Comment