When media outlets publish militarily significant information and make it known to a wider audience (something they seem to do with more frequency during Republican administrations), they generally excuse their actions with claims that they are fulfilling an obligation to the public's "right to know."
Aside from the question of whether the public has a right not to know something, another question presents itself: are journalists obligated to be "neutral" observers, even to the point of endangering the lives of fellow Americans?
Marc Danziger raises that question in an editiorial at the D.C. Examiner:
I’ve blogged about the “journalist vs. citizen” thing. Let me explain through an anecdote:
1987, PBS sponsored a colloquium called “Under Orders, Under Fire” as a
part of their great Ethics in America series (many episodes can still
be found at www.learner.org/resources/series81.html). While the episode
was about military ethics, the bombshell was a sidebar on journalism
between Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace.
Jennings was asked what
he would do if he was embedded with forces fighting U.S. soldiers - and
became aware they had set an ambush for him. He replied, from a James
“If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came
upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn
“Even if it means losing the story?” he was
asked. “Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life,”
Mike Wallace, however, disagreed: “I think some
other reporters would have a different reaction,” he said, obviously
referring to himself. “They would regard it simply as a story they were
there to cover.”
“I am astonished, really,” at Jennings’s
answer, Wallace said a moment later. He turned toward Jennings and
began to lecture him: “You’re a reporter. Granted you’re an American” —
at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings actually
retained his Canadian citizenship.
“I’m a little bit at a loss
to understand why, because you’re an American, you would not have
covered that story,” the interviewer pushed Wallace. Didn’t Jennings
have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other
than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?
“No,” Wallace said flatly and immediately. “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!”
quickly backtracked. Wallace was right, he said. “I chickened out.”
Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical
questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain
detached. Does that bother you? In an era when Islamists publish “The
Global Media: A Work Paper for Invading the U.S. Media, Prepared by
Najd al-Rawi,” it bothers the hell out of me. Personally, I see
journalists at the New York Times first and foremost as fellow citizens
with whom I share obligations. The notion that they don’t see me the
same way causes me a lot of concern.
In World War II, Ernie Pyle
found and publicized flaws in our military — but he did it in the
context of supporting the larger war effort. In Vietnam, Joe Galloway
spent his first night in the field as a journalist manning a machine
That’s not what we ought to expect from our
media today. We don’t need journalists as cheerleaders (not that Pyle
or Galloway ever were) or as combatants. But I do know that a lot of us
would feel better about the criticism leveled by the media at things
the U.S. is doing if we were sure that — in the event of an ambush by
enemies determined to kill some of us — they wouldn’t just see it as a
I’m not asking for White House-led journalism, just
journalism from people who convince me that they really do have our
best interests —as opposed to our best stories — at heart.