China and Britain both underscore how transparency, however painful in the moment, allows democracy, business and the citizenry to thrive in the long run.
Alan Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian, was recently asked to testify before a parliamentary committee in England to discuss his involvement in the release of leaks given to the paper by Edward Snowden. According to this New York Times article, questioning of Rusbridger alleged the possibility of The Guardian and other media organizations' potential criminal activity by publishing the national security secrets distributed by Snowden.
While England lacks any direct equivalent to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, the trial cut deep into questions of whether freedom of the press and of the public to criticize official government proceedings is protected in England. One member of the committee, Keith Vaz of the Labor Party, questioned Rusbridger's patriotism, asking, "I love this country. Do you love this country?"
Confronted with that question, Rusbridger offered up the defense of his love for democracy, which he posited is only attainable with a free and functional press.
David Carr, author of the New York Times piece, wrote of the question of balancing national security and free press that "transparency, however painful in the moment, allows democracy, business and the citizenry to thrive in the long run."
Balance is indeed important and has posed issues for as long as the Espionage Act has been applied in the U.S. against whistleblowers. This balancing question may have began even before the trial of Daniel Ellsberg following the release of the Pentagon Papers. It remains relevant in our modern day where individuals like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden face jail time for their leaks of classified documents.
Considering the outcome the Pentagon Papers case and the lack of an outcome in The Progressive's H-Bomb case, it seems clear the privileging of national security over a free press has to this date been sparingly correctly applied. If no concrete examples of dangers produced by these events can be upheld by our government officials, then how are we to believe the government hasn't been over-classifying information as secret that may in reality serve best to inform the public, or at least the members of the press willing to search for and interpret these documents.
Rusbridger told the parliamentary committee that questioned him that one of the things that makes The Guardian feel patriotic is the "nature of democracy, the nature of a free press and the fact that one can, in this country, discuss and report these things.”
While dangerous consequences, such as certain death of troops or other individuals needs to be avoided at all costs, it bears importance to consider the cost of failure to protect free speech by placing obstacles in the path of a free press.
