Is it ethical for journalists to play a role in gatekeeping whistleblowers testimonies, or is transparency seen from the likes of WikiLeaks a more beneficial method of up keeping the fundamental aspects of freedom in a democratic society?
We live in a democratic society that resides on fundamental principles to exist. Free speech and privacy are essential aspects that allows us to communicate to ensure as a community we make decisions together, taking all into account. Allowing us to scrutinise the higher powers, keeping them in check and avoiding corruption. That is the media’s role, as the fourth estate, overlooking as the public watchdog. Ensuring that neither our ability to speak freely as stated in in Article 10 of The ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), nor our right to privacy, as explained in Article 8 of The ECHR, is diminished.
Within this essay I am looking to discuss each method in dealing with whistleblowers testimonies, analysing the ethics that underlie behind gatekeeping and transparency. I plan to compare the ethical considerations that both Snowden and Assange came into contact with, and the many ethical challenges journalists, and society faces when dealing with whistleblowers.
Through analysation of whistleblowers ethical considerations, I believe some light may be shed on why they choose to use a ‘gatekeeper’, or not, and how they come to an ethical conclusion, on the best method to release information. I will be aiming to understand, how transparency and ‘gatekeeping’, effect the ethics of whistleblowing, and how this impacts on aspects such as ‘truth’, ‘accuracy’, and ‘impartiality’. Finally, I hope to understand how the public interest, plays a role in justifying certain ethical considerations, and to conclude whether transparency and ‘gatekeeping’ enhance, or harm freedom and democracy.
Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks, with the objective of allowing information to be published anonymously into the public domain. The idea was by revealing secrets, the ‘truth’ would be presented to the public, allowing them to hold an open discussion.
“If we are to create a more civilised society, a more just society, it has to be based on the truth”.
– Julian Assange.
The most famous example of this, was US intelligent analyst Bradley Manning. He released thousands of classified documents, including the war logs of Afghanistan/Iraq as well as an Apache video, showing the killing of innocent civilians.
Transparency between the information sourced and the public, means the data is received in its purest form. By not gatekeeping using a journalist, it means information is not framed or constructed. This means you remove bias of the journalist, to angle news in a particular way, allowing the public to draw their own conclusions. This is beneficial to a democracy as it allows people to have an open discussion, and share their interpretations, rather than being influenced how they should interpret it. Therefore a wider range of opinions may be drawn, creating a more open free range discussion that benefits democracy, allowing all to contribute to societal affairs. It could be argued that, this improves impartiality. By eluding the mediator, the gatekeeper, you remove the potential bias of journalistic construction.
“Our goal is just reform, our method is transparency but we do not put the method before the goal”
– Julian Assange
When WikiLeaks released the Apache video, Assange came under much criticism. The film was labelled “collateral murder”, and the footage was edited from the original. Assange constructed the footage, and used a leading title, to present the public with a certain outlook before even watching the video. It affects impartiality as it removes the audience’s ability to perceive the information neutrally, before forming their perception of the ‘truth’. Whilst some might agree with Assange that it is “murder”, others may deem it a consequence of war and find it less shocking.
‘The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.’
The ethical issue is that Assange has potentially ‘mislead’, the audience into believing it is murder. Whereas if the information had not been ‘distorted’ so it was not framed in a certain way, the public could make the decision for themselves, whether it corresponded with their own ‘truth’ about what is classed as “murder”.
‘Truth’ depends on the perception of the person. What one might deem true, may be a lie to others. It all depends on what coincides with a person’s morals, and how they ethically depict something. If information is transparent, it allows people to decide for themselves what they believe is the truth, based on the information available to them. The Apache video is ‘accurate’, what happened is clear and it is hard to dispute a video. However was Assange’s label of ‘collateral murder’, the ‘truth’? That is down to interpretation.
There was particular concern surrounding how WikiLeaks would deal with the war logs. The ethical concern being that releasing data such as this, transparently, could have renowned consequences on human life. One of the most controversial ethical conundrums surrounding this case is harm minimisation. Guardian journalist, Nick Davies, convinced Assange to share these logs with the Guardian and other respected media outlets. They had the ethical dilemma of what redactions should be made, to avoid getting people on the ground hurt in Afghanistan. What is more important, the public interest in the information, or the risk to human life?
“I raised this with Julian and he said, If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die” “It’s a moral problem, we are not here to publish information that gets people killed.”
– Nick Davies
Assange finally agreed to redactions, the blacking out of names and stated he would “eliminate the identity of sources”.
“Julian to my surprise announced that WikiLeaks has a harm minimisation process. Julian had no harm minimisation process, at all.” – Nick Davies
Despite Julian’s promises, 75,000 documents were published without redactions.
“It is a breach of the journalistic ethical value of responsibility to publish recklessly, carelessly and without regard to potential harm”.
Immanuel Kant proposed ‘categorical imperatives’, inflexible duties of ‘musts’ or ‘must nots’. As a society we have formed ‘categorical imperatives’, including not to kill, or influence the loss of human life. Something which as a society we are happy for everyone to be bound by, something Kant suggested was essential when forming these ‘duties’. Assange by not making redactions, risked influencing the loss of human life. He believed it was ethical to publish transparently, weighing that above human life.
However, at this moment there is little evidence to suggest that an individual was harmed as a direct consequence of publishing, without redactions.
“No concrete evidence whatever had surfaced that any informant had suffered actual reprisals”
– Nick Davies
John Stuart Mill argued the ethics of an action should be judged by its consequences. Mill stated that the consequences might form part of an argument for why something is ethical, that an action may be ethical because of the good it produced.
“To judge from the response we had from countries without benefit of a free-press, there was a considerable thirst for the information” – Alan Rusbridger
“Whatever the differences, the results have been extraordinary. Given the range, depth and accuracy of the leaks, the collaboration has produced by any standard one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. – Sarah Ellison
So in accordance with Mill’s ideas, the reaction from the public, from other countries, implies that the release of documents, had some positive impact, compared with little consequential impact, as stated by Rusbridger. However Mill also stated that it did not mean that clearly unethical means suddenly became ethical because the outcome was ‘good’. So were the means used by Assange unethical? On one hand, he showed some effort to ‘gatekeep’ by using established outlets to help make redactions, to minimize harm. However Assange has received criticism from the likes of Nick Davies, for being too reckless, and reluctant to redact.
Perhaps we can weigh up whether Assange’s actions are ethically justified, by assessing the risks taken, against the public interest. According to the IPSO code the public interest includes ‘detecting public health and safety’, ‘detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety’, and ‘preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation’. There is a public interest in both the motivations for war, ‘protecting public health and safety’ and in saving human life, as well as in knowing truth instead of lies, ‘preventing the public from being misled’. Rusbridger assessed the motives of both Manning and Assange, as being “grounded in the genuine belief that the public interest would be served”, by releasing the logs about how the war was conducted. However what troubled Rusbridger, was Assange’s imperative to assert himself as “an editorial partner rather than an editorial source”.
“Who was this shadowy figure ‘playing god’? How could he and his team be sure of a particular documents authenticity? Who was determining the ethical framework that decided some information should be published, and some not?”
– Alan Rusbridger
So although it was believed that Assange thought he would be serving the public interest, something he arguably achieved, determining this himself, not only undermined his method of transparency but also elevates the ethical dilemma’s surrounding Assange’s role in doing so. This distorted version of transparency, brought into question accuracy and impartiality.
Transparency certainly has the potential to benefit freedom and democracy. It allows for open discussion, and allows the public, fully loaded with all the information, to hold the executive to account. However Assange at times, acted as the gatekeeper himself, rather than having total transparency between sourced information and the public, which arose further ethical complications, and risked unethical consequences.
Edward Snowden was launched into the public sphere in 2013, having released a large quantity of documents, detailing the extent the NSA/GCHQ were spying on the American/British public. He showed how they were taking data from telecommunication firms on citizens, revealing domestic spying, and mass surveillance programmes, such as PRISM and TEMPORA. Snowden collected the documents, and fled to Hong Kong. There he met with journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras.
Gatekeeping is the process of information being filtered for dissemination before publication. Ethically it is advantageous to democracy and freedom, as it gives a ‘middle man’, a journalist the information, who is a representative of the public, to decipher through what is in the public interest. This would encourage information to be reported ‘accurately’, without ‘distortion’, that may occur due to bias, as specified in the Ipso code, clause 1 . This is because it removes any of the sources bias, as you are putting the information in neutral hands.
So unlike with Assange, where he edited the Apache video himself, there are not the same ethical implications on impartiality. Through filtering through a journalist, it leaves the ‘public watchdog’ to oversee what is in the public interest. By doing so Greenwald removes bias of Snowden’s personal opinions, creating an ethically superior leak, in that he gave responsibility of ensuring these documents were released: accurately, impartially, truthfully, and in the public interest. So that ethical concerns would not distract from the significant information being provided in the leak.
“If I wanted the documents just put on the Internet in masse, I could have done that myself”.
– Edward Snowden
It is important that the role of the ‘fourth estate’ remains intact, otherwise it opens up the possibility for distorted information, and irresponsible publishing. Something which arose as an issue with WikiLeaks.
“I don’t want to be the person making the decisions on what should be public and what shouldn’t. Which is why rather than publishing these on my own, or putting them out openly, I’m running them through journalists. So that my bias, and my things, because I clearly have some strongly held views, are removed from that equation and the public interest is being represented in the most responsible manner” – Edward Snowden
Gatekeeping does have its own ethical implications however. Gatekeeping could be disadvantageous as it means information, is being withheld from the public. This is where transparency is superior, as by not giving the public the full picture, you are constructing a particular image. Even if not intentional, it removes the possibility for the public to make their own interpretation, as not all the information is available. This could potentially limit a completely open discussion, limiting the ability for everyone to fully participate in a democracy.
However when it comes to issues such as national security, it could be debated that it remains ethically superior to redact, on the basis that otherwise, human life may be put at risk.
Greenwald had to ensure the information was in the public interest. This may provide justification for publishing documents that have been obtained illegally, as obviously without this justification, ethical concerns may arise.
Greenwald could see the documents Snowden possessed detailed how the government was intruding on a person’s ‘natural right’ to privacy. It is important for the public to be aware of this, otherwise it may affect free speech, which obviously impacts freedom.
This is supported by Thomas Hobbes who suggested that we all have ‘natural rights’ and ‘natural freedoms’, and in his social contract theory proposed the idea where we all give up a small portion of these ‘rights’ to create a civil society.
Snowden found evidence to suggest that our ‘natural rights’ (privacy) were being denied to us by the powerful (The government), something Hobbes believed would lead to life being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Something which the public needs to know, arguably justifying the actions of Snowden, and Greenwald’s decision to publish these ‘classified’ documents.
This also aligns with Kant’s theory about ‘categorical imperatives’. As a society we have created certain ‘imperatives’, one of which is our right to free speech. If we feel this imperative is being damaged or changed, then surely it is in the public interest for Greenwald to publish. We believe it is a journalists ‘duty’ to reveal when societies collective ‘categorical imperatives’ are being affected, thus Greenwald, abided by his ‘categorical imperative’ as a journalist.
An ethical failing in this case, however is that there were few journalists deciding what is in the public interest. The consequence here is that you risk journalistic bias, and impartiality, as Greenwald had few people to decide on what can be justified in the public interest. Something we saw equally with WikiLeaks, where Assange played the journalist, where his own biases and opinions emerged – “collateral murder”.
Greenwald had to ask the ethical question: is there risk to human life if I publish?
An advantage of gatekeeping is that it means a journalist can receive the information, make redactions where appropriate, and ensure a harm minimisation process is taken place.
Both Snowden, and Greenwald, took steps to ensure so:
“I have carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was in the public interest.” – Edward Snowden.
Ethically superior to WikiLeaks in that the public interest was weighed up against the risk to human life, something Assange in the eyes of Nick Davies, failed at. As a society we have a ‘categorical imperative’ not to put human life at risk, and we have a ‘duty’ to ensure this does not take place. By conducting a harm minimisation process, Greenwald ensured they coincided with this ‘imperative’.
Assange, Snowden and Greenwald acted on the same ethical basis. They believed an injustice was taking place, ‘categorical imperatives’ were being ignored, aiming to spark reform. Aristotle suggested when you do the ethical thing it’s because of your character. Assange’s reoccurring issue was that his character on occasions, sometimes distorted his method of transparency, to align with his goal of reform. It can be assumed with Snowden on the other hand, that he was very familiar with the ethics of journalism, he was aware of his goal, and attempted to execute it, by going through precedential ethical means. Though using journalists he remained impartial, giving them the facts rather than opinion. He gave them the means to report accurately on the evidence they provided, and his motivation was to reveal what he had come to know as a truth, in the public interest. It could be argued he acted in accordance with Aristotle’s golden mean of living the virtue of ‘courage’, in an attempt to avoid recklessness (he gave journalists the responsibility), and cowardice, in that he was courageous in his action to reveal an injustice to the public.
Transparency is an ideal. If it was possible to transparently provide the public with all the information, democracy would benefit. It would open up a more balanced discussion, where everyone has accurate, and truthful information in front of them. However in a society where it would be inappropriate for the public to have all information available to them, due to national security, it makes it an unethical method of reporting. It is essential that the fourth estate acts as the public’s representative. However by using the method of transparency, the middle man is removed, leaving that state redundant.
Gatekeeping is ethically superior in that it allows the flow of information that is in the public interest, whilst removing anything that could have unethical consequences, such as loss of human life. It encourages impartiality, acting as mediator between source and the public. Gatekeepers can fact check, improving accuracy. Most of all, they can decipher what is the truth, and what is not. Impartiality, accuracy, and truth, all factors on occasions Assange and WikiLeaks left us questioning. I think this quote is a representative summary:
“That highlighted once again the inescapable limitations of the purist WikiLeaks ideology. The material that resided in leaked documents, no matter how voluminous, was not the “truth”. It was often just a signpost pointing to some of the truth, requiring careful interpretation”.
I believe it points out the important role of the gatekeeper, and the necessity to have a journalist interpret on behalf of the public. This then allows the public to gain a complete understanding, allowing for more effective discussion, enhancing freedom and democracy.
The post A Journalists Role in Whistleblowing in the 21st Century appeared first on Buzz.