Ethics on Whistleblowing and Terrorism Reporting

1. Bradley Manning received 35-year long sentencing and was also dishonourably discharged after being found guilty of leaking secret government documents. Manning obtained the material from a classified computer network which he could access as a low-ranked Army intelligence analyst while serving in Iraq. He gave the material to WikiLeaks, a publication widely recognized for whistleblowing the USA’s diplomatic activities. The larger public disapproved Manning’s whistleblowing action since the leaked information was ethically justified secret intelligence whose purpose is safeguarding the nations’ political community. The majority saw Manning’s action directly undermines meeting high levels of protecting the country’s political diplomacy. In Manning’s case, the secrets he disclosed could lead to harming the intelligence community that it is aimed to safeguard. Therefore, the USA’s army intelligence practice is not the direct source of harm to the public, but the exposure of the information gathered through these practices. Therefore, while Manning might have felt obliged to blow the whistle on the military activities in the Middle-East, he was limited by his duty to protect his colleagues. Critics of Manning’s whistleblowing perceive that Manning did not put much consideration on the wider costs that his actions would bring about as well as the failure in subsequent intelligence missions in his ethical calculation. Edward Snowden, on the other hand, leaked documents involving the National Security Agency. Snowden leaked secretive government documents to the press concerning running government surveillance programs that collect the public’s data without their consent. Unlike Manning, however, Snowden received massive public support for whistleblowing.  Snowden is considered more of a hero than a traitor arguing his actions were ethical as he acted from a sense of public good (Ginges, 2008). Despite breaking the law, Snowden saw it was more essential to uphold the social contract of democracy that binds him as a citizen. Supporters of Snowden consider his actions to represent a form of defending others and arose from a sense of duty to avoid harm happening to others. Personally, I find both Manning and Snowden’s whistleblowing to be ethical as they both acted on individual authority that they bestowed on themselves. They both overlooked their contractual and moral obligations to the organizations they work for and put their careers at risk to inform the public. As the agents directly working for the nation’s intelligence community, Manning and Snowden acted on behalf of the country’s political community as witnesses to the harm being brought about by the states’ intelligence activities.
2. Over the years, the satellite channel Al Jazeera has received wide criticism from Washington for its reporting style. The US government does not support the channel airing footages of war casualties and atrocities(Hudson). Whilst the US administration might prefer Al Jazeera to water down its reporting style, I side with the news broadcaster in showing such extremes. One reason I support the channel airing such content is that it represents fairness and an unbiased broadcast. Al Jazeera’s strategy is to show both the official opinion as well as the counter opinion. As a channel based in the Arab world where press freedom is limited, Al Jazeera’s coverage is one way that indicates the revolution of the Media in the Middle East. Also, the channel’s coverage of such atrocities provides more clarity to the public on the aftermath of the nation’s military activities in foreign regions as well as the risks it presents to the nation as well as the foreign states. Other mainstream media tone down what they present regarding the military’s actions and their impacts in the Middle East and other foreign areas. Such channels attempt to support the government’s efforts in safeguarding these regions by aligning their reporting to match the official statements released by the government on the military activities. Hence, such mainstream media fail to present accurate and wholesome information to the public as their duty requires them to do. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, does not filter much while reporting as the news channel finds it necessary to fulfil its responsibility in reporting to the public truthful and accurate news regardless of the sensitivity of the content.  Additionally, Al Jazeera’s reporting approach allows the channel to air breaking news in a slick, entertaining format while still maintain a pan-Arab and pan-Islamist theme. The channel’s coverage of war casualties and atrocities allows it to amass a wide local following which is accustomed to such reporting which hence makes Al Jazeera’s broadcast significant to the locals who are the direct victims of the war events being aired. Despite most Americans and other global regions finding Al Jazeera’s reporting uncomfortable, the channel’s strategy has enabled the larger population of the Middle East region to acquire truthful and unbiased information regarding the war events happening around them. Therefore, Al Jazeera’s reporting style is ethically justified on the basis of enhancing press freedom, especially in a region that it is highly suppressed by governments. Also, Al Jazeera is right in its coverage as it informs on the war subject, which is an issue that most administrations prefer to keep secretive and can easily manipulate the public through press propaganda.
3. To balance between the free flow of information regarding public reporting on terrorism and restricting the same requires effective filtering of the reports that the public receives concerning terrorism. As much as a democratic society is founded on maximum freedom of speech, control levels should be enacted on the subject to a certain degree. Terrorism presents a clear and present danger to the lives of citizens which is among the top considerations given an allowance in restricting the freedom of speech under the modern constitution(Eckholm, 2015). Therefore, regulatory institutions need to monitor and control shared content that involves terrorism. These institutions need to ensure that any material that potentially could influence the growth of terrorism is restricted from publishing or airing. On the other hand, the institutions should ensure the press and media outlets present accurate and helpful information regarding terrorism acts when they occur. Analyzing the ethical values that a terrorism report contributes to society is one way of striking a balance between beneficial journalism and destructive press. Reporters should make sure the content they share is of goodwill and will result in ultimate goodness and positivity to the community. More stringent laws involving freedom of speech and privacy should be enacted to assist in curbing the emerging terrorism threats. The rapid growth in social media in the current digital age allows terrorist groups to recruit on these social media chat-rooms as well as create intimidation and fear to the public (Stille, 2015). Therefore, tougher laws should be put in place that limits promoting terrorist content online as well as monitoring and blocking users, encouraging the same on these social media platforms.

References

Eckholm, E. (2015, December 27). ISIS Influence on Web Prompts Second Thoughts on First Amendment. The United States of America.

Ginges, L. P. (2008). The Mission of Arab Journalism: Creating Change in a Time of Turmoil. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 192-226.

Hudson, M. (n.d.). Washington vs. Al Jazeera: Competing Constructions of Middle East Realities.

Stille, A. (2015, January 15). Why French Law Treats Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo Differently. New York.