Secrets, secrets are no fun...

           Paper trails. Oh, how they are a curious thing. Word of mouth. No proof necessary. These two factors have shaped the way the media and the world is today. Throughout history, important information has been transferred via these ideas. Due to the overwhelming demand of such information, many of the sources of this information have come under scrutiny for the secrecy of their identities. In this blog, I'll examine the issue on whether or not sources of vital information should be kept secret or if it's important enough to print, then it's public knowledge who leaked it.

           In last week's readings, we learned about a the French government coming under public criticism for its accused abuse of its power. Last year, the French interior minister, Claude Gueant, admitted to the French government using its power to obtain detailed lists of calls made by a journalist at Le Monde, according to a NY Times article. In doing so, they were able to identify a government whistle-blower who leaked vital information regarding an investigation on billionaire Liliane Bettencourt. In a similar case, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange came under criticism as a result of a leaked government document over an unencrypted telephone line. In addition to Assange being ridiculed, one of his sources, former U.S. Army soldier Bradley Manning was arrested on suspicion of leaking information to Assange and WikiLeaks in what the U.S. government called "aiding an enemy," a high capitol offense.

            In these two cases, where do ethics come into play? In both instances, a "journalist"'s source's identity was obtained due to government intervention. In reference to vital information, I believe that the source's identity should be revealed. In the world we live in today, many rumors and not-wholly-true "facts" are released to the media. If not entirely true, these information leaks can seemingly insight dangerous situations. Like Daniel Ellsberg said in his NY Times article, "It’ s not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It’s that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret." In regards to information on government doings, I do believe that if there is something that is good enough to be known to the public, then the source of that information should be revealed. I don't believe that journalists should have the ability to gauge whether or not a source is credible or reliable.
            In regards to what Ellsberg said, I do believe that there is a fine line between tasteful discretion and wrongfully secretive. When it comes down to instances like the WikiLeaks situation, where a government is accused of wrongdoings, I do believe that the source should be revealed. If it turns out that the information is indeed factual, then as a public, I believe it is our right to know who the source of the leak is. Especially when it involves the government in a negative light, the public should be privy to know who is spreading the information. On the other end of the spectrum, this can be very dangerous for the source. It's not inconceivable that a government accused of wrongdoings would go to extreme lengths to validate sources and protect their reputation. However, I believe that if the information is vital enough for the public to know, then the source should be revealed as well. I think of it like a court trial. People are not permitted to testify in secrecy or anonymously for purposes of credibility. Even in dangerous situations involving murder, the witness is required to expose their identity to the public. I believe that the same goes in the instance of source leaking. Again, if the information is vital enough to be revealed to the public, then it should be public knowledge of who is leaking this information to those capable of printing it.
            Like I previously mentioned in the instance of Bradley Manning, there is an assumed risk of revealing sources. The fallout in this situation was the ultimate jailing of Manning and public scrutiny of Julian Assange.  As far as the other end of the spectrum, journalists also assume risk in not providing information on sources of information. Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer and formerly of the NY Times-Washington Bureau, was jailed in 2005 and charged with contempt of court for refusing to reveal sources in a 2003 investigation. Although the government had obtained the identity of the source, Miller was arrested due to her refusal to testify in court regarding the source's identity. Personally, I think that Miller was wrong in refusing to testify in court. Again, the information was released under a secretive pretense. Once revealed to the public, I believe that it is fair game. If I were in her shoes, I would've testified in court towards the identity of the source. With information regarding governments, it is my belief that the identity of the source should be revealed as it is a question of ethics. Because the information is so important, I believe it's the public's right to know how the information was obtained as well as the government's right to knowledge, to ensure the information was obtained legally and distributed truthfully.
             I do believe that this is an inescapable dilemma. Although I do not plan to work within the news and media outlets, I recognize that even in the feature film industry, information on factual events must come from somewhere. I think that while unfortunate, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to avoid becoming entangled in scandals involving secrecy. The issue at hand is that much our current society is based upon the idea of "honesty" and "truth." However, I believe that while we are taught to live by these ideas, there are very few times where we as the public are given the entire truth, whether at the hands of the media or the government. In the event where we ARE given information that is said to be "truthful" and "factual," there will always be an issue arising regarding the source of the information, on either side of the topic, whether it be the accuser or the accused. However, in my case, if I were to adhere to my beliefs on source identity and secrecy...I think I would have a severe problem finding anyone to act as a source for information.