2006-08-12 11:07:16 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
For things that are actually classified secrets, no.
For things that are public knowledge, of course.
2006-08-12 11:09:31 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the situation. Newspapers have to weigh alot of different issues.
For instance, lets say a source tells a reporter about a secret government program. The reporter checks with a lawyer, and the program seems legal, necessary, etc. They it should not be reported. The government is doing what it should be doing, so there is no value to the story, only damage.
Now, lets say a source tells a reporter about some clearly illegal domestic warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. This is clearly a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act (FISA) and so the publication of this article is important to AMerica, to tell American citizens that the Governent is engaged in illegal activity. In this case, publication of government secrets is useful and valuable.
As for whether the press knows that a secret is a secret, they are under no obligation to protect secrets. The sources who leak the secrets are. So it is the leaker, not the reporter, who is breaking the law. The many many times that reporters don't report secrets they know to be damaging they restrain themselves out of a sense of patriotism. And they report stuff they think is illegal out of the same sense of patriotism.
2006-08-12 11:11:52 · answer #2 · answered by Charles D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For me, the limit would start to be when they print government secrets, if it was proven that they knew it was a government secret when they printed it, and if we didn't have an administration that constantly makes everything a government secret in order to undermine freedom of the press.
2006-08-12 11:14:18 · answer #3 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great point! All freedoms come with a responsibility not to abuse that freedom. For example, just like parents trust their kids to go out on dates...if it turns out they have abused that freedom, they run the risk of having those freedoms curtailed.
It used to be that the media monitored itself and evaluated whether it was better for the common good to reveal certain pieces of information. It seems that today's media really doesn't care what the security implications are in revealing something. They are only interested in being the "first" with the story and to Hell with the consequences.
Like teenagers' parents, they are running the risk of having their freedoms curtailed.
2006-08-12 12:30:03 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone prints something that is classified as :secret: then the person who does this, and if it impacts any part of our Government in a detrimental way, should be labeled with Treason!
If one person dies, because of this action, then the entire Paper should beheld accountable. And the Editor and Writer should both go to jail, with the possible shut down of the entire newspaper.
I wish you well..
Jesse
2006-08-12 11:23:32 · answer #5 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any reputable newspaper should check with their lawyers and if they say that it is legal they should go with it. If the information is classified then of course not. It is definitely walking the razor's edge so I would say the newspaper should double or triple check before they go to print. Regardless of whether the information is true or false they will hear from the powers that be as soon as it hits the stands. All and all thank god there are people willing to take that chance.
2006-08-12 11:19:41 · answer #6 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media acts as the means for keeping governments as transparent as possible. When there are instances where the public perceives media reports as unethical or even unbelievable, then market forces come into play where demand for that particular media service will drop.
2006-08-12 11:16:00 · answer #7 · answered by Nefarious Eyes 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It certainly is but remember the uproar when it became known that the U.S. was monitoring international money transfers through the Belgian clearinghouse? I bet that information helped thwart the latest London-based terror plans. Now that the terrorists know we're monitoring international money transfers I bet it'll be more difficult to stop the next plot.
Is it worth it?
2006-08-12 11:12:02 · answer #8 · answered by Oh Boy! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not in any way, shape, or form... It is sedition. It is an attempt to aid and abet America's enemies. Personally, I call it an ulawful abuse of The Bill of Rights and I consider it TREASON.
2006-08-12 11:20:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the secrets that Karl Rove leaks, you mean?
2006-08-12 11:10:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋