Eavesdropping on AP Injures West's Freedom of the Press
On May 13, the Associated Press protested “in the strongest possible terms” against the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) secret reading of the private phone records of AP office personnel and reporters. This matter immediately aroused the attention of the international community. How it concludes will not only secure or redefine the boundaries of freedom of the press in the U.S., it will also become the touchstone for whether or not the AP can safeguard the values inherent in “freedom of the press.”
Looking back at the history of news in the U.S., we discover that the tradition of free press was formed through a series of public power struggles and finally solidified by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In reality, however, the U.S. government has never stopped its interference with the press. In 2006, incidents broke out in the U.S. involving wiretapping; among the press community, such occasions of "eavesdropping" then became the most reviled and guarded against of government conduct. Because eavesdropping undoubtedly violates a citizen’s privacy, if it is given any kind of authorization, such behavior would become permissible — and overtly conducted — under a multitude of different banners, a rampant trend inevitably leading to unchecked intensifications. This is why the West’s media universe, ever-flaunting its freedom of the press, has always maintained the highest vigilance and taken precautions against eavesdropping by branches of its own governments. It sees this kind of behavior as unconstitutional and the greatest challenge to the true and ultimate freedom of the press.
The media may not obtain leads and information by the eavesdropping method, a prohibition strictly stipulated by law. The U.K.’s News International* suffered severe sanctions under British law because of an eavesdropping scandal. Is the government allowed then — in the name of so-called “national security” — to eavesdrop on reporters’ telephone conversations at will? The French have answered “no.” In 2010, the French newspaper Le Monde sued the office of Nicolas Sarkozy, accusing the government of inciting intelligence officers to illegally monitor the calls of reporters and informants. Although Sarkozy’s office denied the accusations, the incident indirectly caused his approval ratings to drop to a new low.
The U.S. media have already retracted the boundaries of freedom of the press in order to conform to the government’s anti-terrorism campaign after 9/11. Although U.S. media have reported on the Guantanamo Bay issue, the Iraqi prisoner abuse incident, “black sites” throughout Europe, wiretapping and other “eavesdropping” scandals — and the existence of these news reports is a fundamental reflection of America’s deep-rooted concept of freedom of the press — in 2006, The New York Times’ senior journalist Judith Miller was held in contempt of court and sentenced to prison for refusing to divulge source information for an unpublished article. This is a signal. Miller was put on trial and jailed because she upheld the promise to protect her sources, while Time magazine chose “cooperation” and handed over its reporters’ emails.
At present, the actions of the DOJ seem to be a kind of eavesdropping; naturally, according to the AP, this is unacceptable. First, it offends the honor of those being secretly monitored. Second, it is an invasion of the group’s legitimate right to gather information. Reporters’ inability to protect their sources will affect the credibility of the media, causing a loss of trust and support between them. Meanwhile, reporters’ own freedom of communication was needlessly disrupted and their privacy violated, a blow against their basic human rights. If permission from the U.S. courts is deemed unnecessary, DOJ officials may take it upon themselves to carry out such investigations, and the freedom of the press that the U.S. media regard as such an honor will be greatly harmed, its boundaries forced to recede again and again. Wherever it ends, it will end with a question mark. Therefore, the AP must take a stand, and other media cannot help but be drawn into the matter as well. White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that the White House is not involved in the DOJ investigation. This perhaps can lend some confidence to the AP's struggle. The results remain to be seen.
* Editor's note: News International Limited is now known as NI Group Limited.
Looking back at the history of news in the U.S., we discover that the tradition of free press was formed through a series of public power struggles and finally solidified by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In reality, however, the U.S. government has never stopped its interference with the press. In 2006, incidents broke out in the U.S. involving wiretapping; among the press community, such occasions of "eavesdropping" then became the most reviled and guarded against of government conduct. Because eavesdropping undoubtedly violates a citizen’s privacy, if it is given any kind of authorization, such behavior would become permissible — and overtly conducted — under a multitude of different banners, a rampant trend inevitably leading to unchecked intensifications. This is why the West’s media universe, ever-flaunting its freedom of the press, has always maintained the highest vigilance and taken precautions against eavesdropping by branches of its own governments. It sees this kind of behavior as unconstitutional and the greatest challenge to the true and ultimate freedom of the press.
The media may not obtain leads and information by the eavesdropping method, a prohibition strictly stipulated by law. The U.K.’s News International* suffered severe sanctions under British law because of an eavesdropping scandal. Is the government allowed then — in the name of so-called “national security” — to eavesdrop on reporters’ telephone conversations at will? The French have answered “no.” In 2010, the French newspaper Le Monde sued the office of Nicolas Sarkozy, accusing the government of inciting intelligence officers to illegally monitor the calls of reporters and informants. Although Sarkozy’s office denied the accusations, the incident indirectly caused his approval ratings to drop to a new low.
The U.S. media have already retracted the boundaries of freedom of the press in order to conform to the government’s anti-terrorism campaign after 9/11. Although U.S. media have reported on the Guantanamo Bay issue, the Iraqi prisoner abuse incident, “black sites” throughout Europe, wiretapping and other “eavesdropping” scandals — and the existence of these news reports is a fundamental reflection of America’s deep-rooted concept of freedom of the press — in 2006, The New York Times’ senior journalist Judith Miller was held in contempt of court and sentenced to prison for refusing to divulge source information for an unpublished article. This is a signal. Miller was put on trial and jailed because she upheld the promise to protect her sources, while Time magazine chose “cooperation” and handed over its reporters’ emails.
At present, the actions of the DOJ seem to be a kind of eavesdropping; naturally, according to the AP, this is unacceptable. First, it offends the honor of those being secretly monitored. Second, it is an invasion of the group’s legitimate right to gather information. Reporters’ inability to protect their sources will affect the credibility of the media, causing a loss of trust and support between them. Meanwhile, reporters’ own freedom of communication was needlessly disrupted and their privacy violated, a blow against their basic human rights. If permission from the U.S. courts is deemed unnecessary, DOJ officials may take it upon themselves to carry out such investigations, and the freedom of the press that the U.S. media regard as such an honor will be greatly harmed, its boundaries forced to recede again and again. Wherever it ends, it will end with a question mark. Therefore, the AP must take a stand, and other media cannot help but be drawn into the matter as well. White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that the White House is not involved in the DOJ investigation. This perhaps can lend some confidence to the AP's struggle. The results remain to be seen.
* Editor's note: News International Limited is now known as NI Group Limited.