How far does freedom go?

This week we talked about freedom of the press, in regards to the phone hacking scandal. One of the opening statements was that freedom of the press is one of the best safeguards for democracy, which was said by former Prime Minister John Howard.

One important question asked was how far does freedom of the press go?

Things that hinder press freedom include privacy laws and sometimes government or policing authorities. While the press work independently of judiciary and legislative state powers, there are still situations in which information is hidden from the public eye. An example was given of the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, where no evidence could be given of him being a terrorist. Police confiscated all footage, so little was publicised.

On the flip side, there are examples of the press going too far, such as hacking private conversations on phones. In this situation, it is the media which have moved to far out of line, whether it be due to unethical employees, the pressures of work to have good stories or both.

While the media is considered the fourth estate, keeping people accountable by putting them in the public eye, how far is too far? When do private matters need to be made public, and when is prying into private lives sharing things that should stay personal?

It appears that although the press pride themselves on keeping others accountable, it is in fact the public that keep them accountable when they take freedom into their own hands.

The Fourth estate and de Menezes

Keeping the press accountable: Phone Hacking Scandal

WIKILEAKS: Is Transparency the New Objectivity?

Transparent: Easy to perceive or detect (Wiki, 2011)

Objective: Based on observable phenomena; presented factually (Free Online Dictionary, 2011)

From these definitions, transparency and objectivity aren’t at all mutually exclusive.

The seminar presented today was on WikiLeaks and their ideal of transparency, with the question of would if replace objectivity?

For starters, a lot of the discussion at the end centred on that while WikiLeaks broke stories and provided lots of document information, most of the class still heard about these stories through traditional news sources, which provide the objectivity as well as the information.

In fact, WikiLeaks feed their information to major news organisations such as NY Times for them to wade through the masses of documents to find the story. Although WikiLeaks will report a story themselves, they also provide the documents online for all to see.

I for one have never visited WikiLeaks to wade through the masses of documents to find the truth. I’d prefer to wait for professional journalists to do the hard work and give me an objective summary.

One thing I think is missing in the ‘transparent world’ ideal is a little bit of context. Its one thing to provide masses of information on scandals or government documents, but this doesn’t necessarily provide the whole story. An objective view is needed to give context to its readers.

Another thing hindering context, and hindering the public hearing the full story (or total transparency) is the fact that while submitters to WikiLeaks remain anonymous, we cannot be sure of their motives or even further information they might have that they might be leaving out.

The WikiLeaks website states that ‘publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people’ (WikiLeaks, 2010).

Personally, I think this ‘dumping of information’ may be effective in getting a reaction in the short term, yet in the long term, its accuracy, balance (or objectivity) and value should be questioned.