Congress, reluctantly, it
seems, is taking up shield law legislation — that is putting in place
protection for the media that allows reporters to protect their sources and
ward off such charges as “espionage “if they reveal information the government
believes is secret. The U.S. Constitution provides for broad interpretations of
free speech, but also identifies the media as having a special role in the
checks and balances system to guard against a government or branch of government
that over reaches its charge.
If the Bernard Manning debacle
didn’t alert us to the problems of making just about anything the government
does secret — putting the powerful beyond anyone’s reach — then the Edward
Snowden affair has put the issue on the front burner.
His vilification is a lesser
issue than the threat it poses to press freedom, or, if you like free speech. His case will be resolved, one way or
another. But what about other
whistleblowers? And what about the reporters who see to it someone hears the
whistle?
According to a story in The
New York Times and a post in the The Huffington Post and as recently
as Saturday, friends and associates of Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald,
who is the primary teller of Snowden’s adventures, have been hassled —
detained and interrogated. Saturday, agents invaded Greenwald’ personal
life. The reporter’s partner of several years was stopped at a London airport, kept there for six hours, and had his
personal belongings confiscated. All this is being justified, say reports,
under various terrorist laws.
Talk about the chilling effect
on reporting the news honestly. Worse, one of Greenwald’s professional cohorts,
as reported in this last weekend’s Times Magazine, is a victim of
government harassment. Laura Poitras is an investigative journalist who makes documentaries
often scrutinizing government power. As such, Laura Poitras has been subject to
the kind of secret agency intrusion one expects to find only in the movies like
The Bourne Identity. People who
made themselves available for on-screen interviews for her film were hassled as
well, some even more harshly. Agents
broke into a former NSA official’s home, guns drawn on him, his wife, and
children. He wasn’t charged, but his computer and other items were confiscated.
Yet there is debate about
providing a shield law for reporters, many of whom go up against the mightiest
security forces in the world to make sure we know what’s really going on. But even those politicians who pretend to want freedom of
the press really only want to preserve its sacred appearance. They are more interested in their own status,
their own shield of secrecy. Head of the
Senate Intelligence Committee and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Dianne Feinstein knows she cannot be against it, but cannot bring herself to
fully support freedom of the press either.
 |
| Laura Poitras, Documentary-Maker — Shoestring? |
A real reporter, declared Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing, is “a salaried agent” of a media company like the New York
Times or ABC News, not a “shoestring operation with volunteers and writers who
are not paid.”
The sheer snobbery of the extremely
wealthy Senator’s remarks should be enough to provoke outrage for those who
believe in freedom of speech and the importance of an informed electorate. But the comment is even more telling. This is the same mental contortion that led
to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Money is speech, they said. The more money you have the more speech you
are entitled to, it appears. Mega-Media
corporations like The New York Times and ABC News have significantly
more rights than some poor “shoestring” operation. And Feinstein wants to
protect the powerful, not the people who need the protection. Very clever and very cynical. Damn those volunteers.
Shouldn’t we be more worried about
the corporate ownership of our representatives — Senator Feinstein, are you
listening? — than a dedicated reporter of an obscure blog spilling information
that embarrasses our bureaucrats? In
fact, powerful media are much less likely to need a shield law than altruistic
truth-sayer — volunteers possibly.
By the way, the only one caught
lying in this whole affair is the head of NSA.
He lied to Congress without consequence.
No comments:
Post a Comment