Silence is golden
It is well known that protecting sources is one of the most sacred duties of journalists, as is «muckraking»—even if this provokes the government to make mistakes.
Column Protecting whistleblowers is one of the most sacred duties of journalists, as is muckraking. It wasn't so long ago that almost every decent journalist's biography included jail time. At least a few days in custody were a must. But not because of silver spoon clauses, but because conflicts with the state were, and probably still are, inevitable when practicing the profession. So is it any of our business if two journalists in the USA, Judith Miller from the New York Times and Matthew Cooper from Time news magazine, have to face 18 months in prison? Neither of them has even published anything illegal, they just don't want to reveal a whistleblower that the judicial authorities are interested in. The answer is a firm and worried "yes", because the very substance of press freedom is under threat here - and this in the most powerful democracy in the world.
In contrast to the spelling reform or the paparazzi ruling by the European Court of Justice, where many journalists up and down the country have been using the media wind machine on their own behalf, the protection of whistleblowers is a real issue. If the US courts send Miller and Cooper to prison, this will affect the core area of journalistic activities that are necessary and must be possible in every democracy. Because if courts send reporters to prison because they do not reveal their sources, no one will be able to help uncover scandals in future. And journalists very rarely succeed in shedding light on the darker sides of politics and business life on their own, i.e. without informants.
I have great doubts as to whether what is at stake can be regulated by law beyond the freedom of the press guaranteed in the constitutions. It would be important for both sides to be more aware of the consequences: Where the judicial authorities do not see themselves as the supreme guardians of freedom of expression, this fundamental right is not in good shape. If, on the other hand, journalists ignore the fact that even the protection of whistleblowers can reach its limits, there is a danger that journalists will abuse their most precious right and thus gamble it away.
The protection of whistleblowers is a key prerequisite for journalists to be able to play their role in checks and balances. If the system of checks and balances is to function, the media - as a non-governmental "fourth estate" - must of course also be subject to control, although this must not go so far as to intimidate and punish them. That is why I would like to see as little control of journalism by the judiciary as possible, but all the more self-control of journalism by (media) journalists.
But since the world is not as it should be, clever whistleblowers know that there is no absolute protection for sources. And there certainly won't be, as the current discussions about torture as a "last resort" for obtaining information from the state show. So it's best to do as the anonymous person who pilloried CDU politician Hermann-Josef Arentz by informing the media about his lucrative side income did. The timing was just as perfect as the way the evidence was removed: Five days before the CDU party conference, the informant dropped off four letters at the post office addressed to editorial offices of important media outlets. He left no return address and no other traces. And according to Hans Leyendecker from the Süddeutsche Zeitung, even the post office chosen was "so large that no conclusions could be drawn about the sender".
> Stephan Russ-Mohl is a professor of journalism at the University of Lugano.
In contrast to the spelling reform or the paparazzi ruling by the European Court of Justice, where many journalists up and down the country have been using the media wind machine on their own behalf, the protection of whistleblowers is a real issue. If the US courts send Miller and Cooper to prison, this will affect the core area of journalistic activities that are necessary and must be possible in every democracy. Because if courts send reporters to prison because they do not reveal their sources, no one will be able to help uncover scandals in future. And journalists very rarely succeed in shedding light on the darker sides of politics and business life on their own, i.e. without informants.
I have great doubts as to whether what is at stake can be regulated by law beyond the freedom of the press guaranteed in the constitutions. It would be important for both sides to be more aware of the consequences: Where the judicial authorities do not see themselves as the supreme guardians of freedom of expression, this fundamental right is not in good shape. If, on the other hand, journalists ignore the fact that even the protection of whistleblowers can reach its limits, there is a danger that journalists will abuse their most precious right and thus gamble it away.
The protection of whistleblowers is a key prerequisite for journalists to be able to play their role in checks and balances. If the system of checks and balances is to function, the media - as a non-governmental "fourth estate" - must of course also be subject to control, although this must not go so far as to intimidate and punish them. That is why I would like to see as little control of journalism by the judiciary as possible, but all the more self-control of journalism by (media) journalists.
But since the world is not as it should be, clever whistleblowers know that there is no absolute protection for sources. And there certainly won't be, as the current discussions about torture as a "last resort" for obtaining information from the state show. So it's best to do as the anonymous person who pilloried CDU politician Hermann-Josef Arentz by informing the media about his lucrative side income did. The timing was just as perfect as the way the evidence was removed: Five days before the CDU party conference, the informant dropped off four letters at the post office addressed to editorial offices of important media outlets. He left no return address and no other traces. And according to Hans Leyendecker from the Süddeutsche Zeitung, even the post office chosen was "so large that no conclusions could be drawn about the sender".
> Stephan Russ-Mohl is a professor of journalism at the University of Lugano.
