I actually wrote two of the most recent blogs in complete ignorance over the freedom of the press issue that has once again raised its ugly head in respect of the 'The Dark Knight rises' shootings last year when 12 people were killed at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado..
Jana Winter, a New York journalist, wrote a piece last year in which she cited 'two law enforcement sources' and detailed an alleged notebook sent to his psychiatrist by the man accused of the shooting, James Holmes, prior to the bloodbath which he appeared to indicate his intent, filled as it was with stick figures shooting other stick figures. What is at stake, it appears, is perhaps six months in prison for Ms Winter but, perhaps more importantly, the well-worn adage of journalists; protect your sources at all costs.
However it seems to me that this is not the only issue here. The protection of sources issue is only likely to become an issue because Winter defied a court gagging order on pre-trial publicity; it still might have become an issue but with a court ban it seems to be a certainty. There is also the question of whether or not the 'law enforcement sourdes' had any right, moral and legal, to be speaking about something which should have been solely the province of the prosecution and defence councils and the accused. There is also the question of how far should doctor/patient confidentiality over-ride the obligations of citizens to do their civic duty and report suspicion of potential crime in order to prevent it.
That last aspect is probably the easiest to answer; never. It is a very slippery slope which doctors would have to negotiate were they to be, morally or legally, impelled to voice their own personal suspicions, whether or not they are backed by expertise and experience; that way leads to a 'Minority Report'* situation which can surely never be justified, even on practical grounds, except in a totalitarian regime.
In the same way, there is a paramount need for journalists to protect their sources IN EVERY CASE. Prosecution lawyers and judges and even the Lord Chancellor may disagree but without a guarantee of anonymity, people will be far less inclined, may be totally disinclined, to speak to journalists, especially investagative journalists, which undermines not only the journalists' profession and the freedom of the press but also cuts to the heart of what the general public actually wants journalists to do; probe and get to the truth of the matter.
As far as I am aware, the sanctity of that anonymity has been preserved in the UK, although it took an appeal to the European Court to do so (see Bill Goodwin's famous case in the late 80s & the 90s, that one ran and ran), however I believe that this 'rule' may be overturned in the US 'in the interests of national security', which is just another way of saying that if the President and his/her advisors want to know where the information came from then 'spill the beans' otherwise it is a brief spell in chokey for you, sunny Jim/sunny Jane. Journalists, at least the responsible among them, tread a hair's breadth tightrope between the need to disclose, possibly sensitive or personal, information and the need to make the story public to the very public that want, and need, to be informed about events.
Ms Winter's alleged breach of a court order banning pre-trial publicity is very straightforward. If she believes the ban wrong in some way, then she can defy the ban. However, she must then suffer the consequences of a breach of the law. There are many instances of people defying an unjust ruling or law but it is not a defence to say that the ruling or law was unjust to avoid the consequences; one must always be prepared to take the responsibilty.
I do, however have a problem with the 'law enforcement sources' who disclosed the information in the first place. If the doctor and client, the journalist and source and the lawyer and client privileges are to be maintained , it is surely hypocritical for one not to maintain the concept that the details of a potential criminal case should only be confined to the suspect, the police department and the officers involved and the lawyers until the case comes to court and, only then, if the judge does not decide to hear the case 'in camera'.
Perhaps, 'the law enforcement sources' believed they were merely hastening a guilty man to the gallows; they knew he was guilty, ergo a conviction by any means, within reason, was justifiable. I do not know. But what I do know for sure is that is wrong to seek to change a public's perception of an issue because of a strongly held belief of a small group of inviduals. I followed the Casey Anthony trial in the American media, much to my dismay, and to an outsider, nigh on everyone was saying she caused the death of her daughter, whether by neglect or outright murder. She was acquited. The jury refused to accept the prosecution's case. However just suppose that the police had leaked letters, text messages, emails to the press which implied, or inferred, an intent to kill. Would the jury have been able to divorce that from their minds? Would they have been influenced in a way that they, ultimately, were not?
As I say, it is a fine line that journalists walk. I sincerely hope that Ms Winter gets no more than she deserves, although I am at a loss to know exactly what that is.
* A novel by the inestimable Phillip K Dick in which precognicients fortell murders before they occur prividung the police with the opportunity to arrest the 'culprit' before the crime and thus saving lives. The novel was subsequently made into a film starring Tom Cruise.
No comments:
Post a Comment