Did anyone else watch the second episode of Frontline's News War series last night (Tuesday)? It dealt largely with the recent press leaks of secret government security programs, such as the CIA prison system and the NSA wiretapping program. The question posed was whether the right of freedom of the press trumps national security concerns of the government. In these cases I felt confident that the New York Times and Washington Post did the right thing in exposing these programs of questionable constitutionality. But, in a more abstract sense, I find the power of the press somewhat troubling. At one point, an official was asked if the press had an appropriate role as a check or balance in the United States. The official responded that the press should not fulfill that role because it is not elected. He said the legislative and judicial branches are the checks and balances, not the press. This resonated more profoundly when the editor of the Washington Post said that he has withheld a number of articles from publication for national security concerns over the past 30 years. While I'm pleased that he has been sensitive and conscientious so far, it's troubling that an unelected editor has that kind of power and knowledge to affect national security - that an unelected person is making those kinds of decisions.

The problem is, obviously, negotiating the balance between national security and freedom of the press (as well as other constitutional rights). I don't think the government is mistaken in saying that the recent press leaks have harmed our national security. However, the important thing is deciding whether national security was harmed to a degree unacceptable for the national interest, and whether that national security came at an unacceptable price. When a journalist uncovers a government action of questionable merit, he/she should report it to the public so that the public can decide. But, if in reporting it and making it known, it harms national security, there's no undoing it if the public decides it is ok. What would a more appropriate role for the press be? Reporting questionable government activities having to do with national security solely to the legislature or the courts?

So far I haven't felt like the press has made a mistake yet - it has responsibly reported things the government should not be doing in the war on terror. However, it seems like the conventional checks and balances should be more involved in this process.

Thoughts?

If you missed the show, you can watch it online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/