A narrow patriotism — the psychological equivalent of a knee jerk — is an under-recognized force in modern journalism ethics.
It distorts our thinking about the role of journalism as soon as journalists offend national pride and whistleblowers dare to reveal secrets. Narrow patriotism turns practitioners of a free press into scolding censors. Suddenly, independent journalists become dastardly law breakers.
Narrow patriotism is the view that “love of country” means not embarrassing one’s government, hiding all secrets and muting one’s criticism of foreign and military policy in times of tension. Narrow patriotism is an absolute value, trumping the freedom of the press.
The Wikileaks saga proves, once again, that this form of patriotism is a powerful commitment of many journalists; often, more powerful than objectivity or independence.
For instance, as WikiLeaks rolled out the American diplomatic cables, Jeffrey T. Kuhner of the conservative Washington Times called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assangein a December 2 opinion piece. “We should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him”
One day later, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said the WikiLeaks document dump was “sabotage” during a time of war. US Attorney General Eric Holder should “Throw the WikiBook” at the website, using every legal tool at his disposal.
These vociferous comments are not nasty comments made by anonymous online “patriots.” They come from practitioners of a free press in the land of the free.
Critical journalism as patriotism
The Wikileaks controversy reveals tensions in our view of the role of journalism in democracy.
We believe in the idea of a free press; but we oppose it in practice when the press offends our patriotism, or works against some vaguely defined “national interest.”
The same narrow patriotism was at work among major American media when President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq on flimsy claims. TV anchors put flags on their lapels and reporters accepted too easily the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
In times of conflict, the strong emotions of patriotism override journalists’ in-principle commitment to critical informing the public and to impartiality. The word “patriotism” rarely occurs in journalism codes of ethics but its influence on practice is substantial.
So what’s the right view of the role of journalism?
The role of a free press is not to serve the government or its diplomats. It is to serve the public who hold government accountable through information provided by the media.
Throughout history, journalists have caused their governments trouble and embarrassment. Journalists are properly patriotic when they write critically of government, when they reveal their hidden strategies, when they embarrass their government in front of the world.
Criticism and the publishing of important confidential data is the way journalists often serve the public, despite howls of outrage from some citizens.
Of course, Kuhner and Krauthammer don’t represent all American journalists. Many journalists support WikiLeaks. For example, Anthony Shadid, foreign reporter for The New York Times in Bagdad, expressed enthusiastic support during a recent lecture at my university’s Centre for Journalism Ethics.
The two-time Pulitzer Prize winner said: “I should probably be a little more ambiguous and grey about this, but I think it’s wonderful. It’s a wonderful disclosure, this transparency and this openness of public office. I find it incredibly refreshing and incredibly insightful, as well.”
Two things at once
Like Shadid, I think the importance of the cables justifies their publication. But I am more concerned than Shadid about the new power of ‘stateless’ websites like Wikileaks.
In my view, if we care about the freedom to publish we need to do two things at the same time: First, protest attempts to shut down WikiLeaks, which include denying it access to the internet and calls to arrest Assange.
Second, we need to urge Assange to explain the principles that guide his decision to publish. Is he committed to simply publishing any and all secrets regardless of the consequences? Or is he willing to adopt the responsible approach of The New York Times and The Guardian which seeks to minimize the harm of their stories by carefully vetting the data. Is Assange willing to balance the freedom to publish with the principle of minimizing harm?
Minimizing harm does not mean not damaging the public profile of government. It means not naming informants, human activists, or innocent third parties if that would prompt reprisals. It means not providing detailed information that would help terrorists attack a public institution.
Organizations like The New York Times are serious about vetting their stories. I am not so sure Assange or WikiLeaks has the same concern.
Public support for this form of whistleblower journalism will turn swiftly against it should future releases lead to the death of a third party, or lead to a terrorist attack. The best way to retain support for a free press is to act responsibly, and to be seen to be acting so.
Is ‘responsibility’ a declining idea?
From an ethical perspective, what is significant about the emergence of WikiLeaks is not only that new technology allows citizens to gather and publish secret material globally, and these online publishers are difficult to control.
What is significant is that enthusiasm for revealing secrets undermines the idea of responsibility — the responsible use of the freedom to publish.
In a WikiLeaks world, the principle of minimizing harm, first articulated by professional journalism in the previous century for another media era, may be dwindling in importance.
Up to this point, the release of WikiLeaks documents has followed a pattern: WikiLeaks supplies the secret data to major papers and professional journalists vet and write the stories. In the future, however, the role of responsible news outlets may decline.
As new websites spring up, each pursuing their ends with the passion of activists, the idea of a free and responsible press may come to seem irrelevant. The idea of ethically restraining the freedom to publish may recede into the rear view mirror of history.
I hope not.