Everyone in these parts knows May 3 marked the 129th running of the Kentucky Derby. But yesterday had other meaning, too: It was World Press Freedom Day.
So as you (possibly) nurse your head after one too many of yesterday’s juleps, consider the real headaches involved in bringing stories home to people here, there and everywhere.
The lethal costs of doing journalism were illustrated in the Iraq war, in which at least a dozen journalists were killed or died while doing their jobs; a handful of others still is missing. Last year, almost 50 journalists were murdered in 20 countries and more than 130 journalists were imprisoned in 27 countries.
Death may be the ultimate cost in trying to cover a story, but it is not the only cost.
Last week, a number of journalists who work for Xinhua, the official news agency of China, were punished for publishing a government advisory about Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, the highly infectious and contagious virus known as SARS. The senior editor was fired and others on the foreign desk staff were docked three months’ pay, said the advocacy group, Reporters Without Borders.
Other punishments are meted out by governments or individuals around the world. Among those costs of bringing people information they need, according to The Guardian newspaper in Great Britain: A reporter banned from speaking in public for five years (Angola); another whose hands and legs were broken in retaliation for a story (Bangladesh); beatings sustained for election coverage (Egypt); prison (Peru) and internal exile (Iran); disappearances (Ukraine); bombing and expulsion (Zimbabwe).
Yes, we are indeed fortunate to live where we do, in a nation whose press freedoms are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. You will not hear the horror stories you hear about journalists in other countries.
But we’re not home free in the land of the free, and now certainly isn’t the time to be smug about the freedom we have to gather information.
There are indications that we don’t have as much freedom as we used to.
You don’t have to take my word for it.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, a group called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has kept an eagle eye — and documentation — on incursions into Americans’ access to information and the public’s right to know.
That’s even the subtitle of the group’s ”Homefront Confidential: How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public’s Right to Know,” now in its third edition and available for all to see on the Internet. (http://www.rcfp.org)
This important chronicle is one of the current projects of this group, which was started by journalists in 1970, a time when the government was issuing a lot of subpoenas to try to force reporters to reveal their confidential sources in stories. RCFP was born as a non-profit entity to provide free legal and advisory help in free-speech battles of that age, and other ages.
In the more than 30 years since its birth, RCFP has been involved in almost every press freedom case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
And now the group is tracking the efforts of federal, state and local governments to stem the flow of information to taxpayers, citizens and journalists alike. In the shadow of Sept. 11, many of those efforts have been made in the name of security.
Recently I talked with Lucy Dalglish, the media lawyer who currently is executive director of RCFP; formerly she was a reporter and editor. The word she used to describe what has happened to our — meaning every American’s — access to information since Sept. 11 is ”retreat.”
But you don’t have to take her word for it, either.
All you have to do is look at the voluminous pages of ”Homefront Confidential,” which are divided into chapters (among them, ”Covering the war,” ”Military tribunals,” ”Domestic coverage,” ”The USA Patriot Act,” ”Freedom of Information”) and the colorcoded threat levels, a la the Department of Homeland Security, assigned to them.
Some excerpts:
* ”Freedom of information . . . Severe risk to a free press . . . Federal FOI officers now act under directions from the Attorney General to give strong considerations for exemptions before handing out information, and from the White House to protect ‘sensitive’ but unclassified’ information. Federal Web sites have come down and a measure to protect ‘homeland security’ records became law in 2002. . . .”
* ”Access to terrorism and immigration proceedings . . . Severe risk to a free press . . . Traditionally, hearings involving immigrants and material witnesses operated under a presumption of openness. But post-Sept. 11, secrecy stands as the default status for access, making it difficult — if not impossible — for the American public and the press to learn about detainees and material witnesses . . .”
* ”The USA Patriot Act and beyond . . . Elevated, significant risk to a free press . . . It is still unclear how or when the FBI’s expanded wiretapping powers will affect journalists, but the Justice Department has shown that it intends to use its powers aggressively. And now, the department is seeking even greater powers, while the executive branch looks into several eavesdropping and data mining initiatives . . .”
I feel I’ve given ”Homefront Confidential” short shrift here, because the true meaning of what is happening is in the details and analysis of what’s included. You need to acquaint yourself with what’s in that report, because it’s all about you and your government and what you — and we, as your deputies — may or may not be able to find out about the government’s business.
As the report states, ”A strong FOI (Freedom of Information) tradition suggests that the public is entitled to learn about the fallibility of its government — where weakness exists, an informed public can clamor for change . . .”
Something to think about around World Press Freedom Day.
Next online forum: You’ve seen the ads on television. You’ve read the articles in the newspaper. Perhaps you’ve even been to a political forum or two. Yes, it’s coming down to the wire for the primary election of May 20.
In advance of that, we’ve tapped Al Cross, the veteran political reporter and columnist at The Courier-Journal, to be this month’s online forum guest at www.courier-journal.com
He’ll answer your questions about political coverage.
Cross started working at the newspaper in 1978, and covered a variety of regions and topics before joining the Frankfort bureau in 1987. He has won a number of journalism awards for his work and has authored articles for national publications. Chances are, you’ve seen him on CSPAN; certainly you’ve seen him on KET’s ”Comment on Kentucky” because he is the program’s longestrunning and most frequent panelist. He also served as the national president of the Society of Professional Journalists.
So, you should have a lot to talk about with Cross from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. Monday, May 12.
To take part in the discussion with Cross, or to post a question in advance, just go to the newspaper’s Web site and find the Public Editor Forum in the Reader forums section of the site.
If you’ve never taken part in a reader forum, you’ll need to register with a valid e-mail address and have that verified. There’s not much more to it than that.
After you’ve registered, click the ”log in” link at the Public Editor Forum, enter that, click on the ”Questions for Al Cross” folder and post your questions.
