Megaphones and Reporters – what’s the difference?

George Rebane

Regarding the national controversy on leaks and leaking, let’s consider the roles of megaphones and media reporters.  We understand that a ‘leak’ today is considered as the release of confidential information that is not intended to be widely distributed among the public.  A leak requires the participation of at least two functioning ‘agents’ – 1) a person (the Leaker) who decides to divulge information in an unauthorized manner and does so to a third party, and 2) the agent (the Broker) providing the functional means of distributing the information to an audience so as to serve the agenda of the Leaker.

The Leaker’s actions may or not be illegal and therefore criminal.  (If it is illegal to transmit the confidential information to an unauthorized recipient, the Leaker becomes a criminal the moment he gives the information to the Broker, regardless of whether the Broker knows the provenance of the information he receives.)  The Broker is usually a media reporter who works for an outlet through which he will distribute the leaked information to an audience intended by the Leaker.

Today’s controversy involves the status and role of the Broker as a member of our Fourth Estate, namely the press.  Liberal societies perfunctorily hold the role and function of the press to be sacrosanct, since it is thought that it is an unfettered press which keeps ‘the people’ informed of things important to their well being, information that would otherwise be held from them to their ultimate detriment.

However, the role of the Broker becomes controversial when the leaked information is deemed confidential to the level that it affects the security and relations of sovereign nation-states, and the internal operations of their governments.  Specifically, does the Broker bear any responsibility for distributing any information he may receive from a Leaker?  Or since if the Broker violated no law or explicit stricture of confidentiality, is he free to broadcast the leaked information without further thought or consideration?

To help answer this important question, consider two scenarios.  In the first, the Leaker contacts the Broker, transmits the information, and sits back to enjoy the Broker fulfill his function of dissemination.  In the second, the Leaker picks up a megaphone (or in the modern era a radio transmitter or an anonymous web post or its many functional equivalents) and, bypassing the Broker, simply disseminates the confidential information himself.  We then reformulate the question – does the human Broker have any more responsibility in being part and party to a leak than does a megaphone?

The national debate today does not seem to appreciate this important perspective of what is a leak.  For most certainly, if the Leaker gave his information to the Broker who then decided not to further disseminate it, but to simply hold it confidential in perpetuity, there would be no leak.  I have not seen any reporter or pundit able to penetrate this simple analysis of the existential components of a leak, and the further ramifications it would raise regarding the responsibilities of an involved Broker/reporter.  But to be absolutely frank, I tend to think that a reporter – no matter the low regard that that profession commands in our land – should still be held to a higher standard than a plastic megaphone.  

Comments

[ScenesFromTheApocalypse]

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/law-leaks.pdf

[ScenesFromTheApocalypse]

So far as I know, there's no Federal Shield Law.

It strikes me as a whole body of rules that should be re-thought. Anyone is a reporter (and can live anywhere) in the era of the internet and none of the reporters report news, they all write editorials.

[George Rebane]

Scenes 639am - Indeed. However, don't stop there. We look forward to your usually astute analysis of and answer to the question I pose in my commentary - as you suggest, do rethink the rules.

[Bill Tozer]

Quick! Emergency! Hurry before Trump squelches the report and it's too late! Leak it now, of mother of mercy, leak it now. No time to waste.

"But those who worked on the report are pushing back against the claims, saying the version that was obtained and posted in full by the New York Times has actually been online and available to the public for months."

“The Times' leaked draft has been on the Internet Archive since January, during the public comment period,” Kopp said.

A White House official on Tuesday said the New York Times story is “disappointing, yet entirely predictable.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/08/scientists-call-out-new-york-times-for-incorrect-claim-about-climate-report.html

[ScenesFromTheApocalypse]

re: GR@8:26AM

I'd really have to think on it. My gut feeling is that current law concerning the press is a holdover from the days of large urban newspapers and the oligopoly in broadcast radio/TV. Modern times are slipping back into the sort of thing you saw with colonial era political tracts and 18thC-style pseudonyms, and I can't say that elevating some members of the press to a fourth branch of government makes as much sense now.

Probably what we could stand to see is not so much law, but a tendency for people to write whatever they like and for the government to actively work towards privacy. My dream is that something like the NSA exerts all of it's power towards computer security and privacy, the lack of which is much more dangerous than the occasional crime or terrorist act IMO. People need to protect themselves, of course. When it's not only the .gov but Green Libertarian corporations like Google which actively trawl your email, you've got a problem

[Bill Tozer]

Scenes: Did you recently refer to the game called Telephone, or was that Fish?

https://www.ecowatch.com/leaked-climate-change-report-2470544185.html?ref=yfp

Wonder how long before Punch E breaks the news to us.

[ScenesFromTheApocalypse]

re: BillT.

Probably me I think. Most of the anti-Trump stuff is from a website that quotes a website that quotes a website that got it from some anonymous guy.

[ScenesFromTheApocalypse]

re: BillT@3:33PM

Climate. Bummer that nothing is ever that simple.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html

I just wish that the climate change folks weren't always trying to hijack all public policy with that banner in front of the march. I have a funny feeling that if you sat down and worked out truly effective ways to decrease human-produced CO2 emissions, they really really wouldn't like the results.

[Mary Wanna]

Trump declassifies the leaked info on North Korea to help his buddies at Fox and Friends so it is all OK! You can feel the love!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/08/fox-friends-puts-on-a-north-korea-leak-o-rama/?utm_term=.596fe63f1936

[George Rebane]

MaryW 423pm - Wow, would you please explain that?

[Bill Tozer]

Don't read the Wa Compost, but it is in any President's perview to declassify materials. The sky is falling! Only about 8 -10 hours late with that story, Mary W.

[Mary Wanna]

By disseminating the leaked info on his White House approved official Twitter feed Trump has effectively declassified and confirmed the leak.

[Bill Tozer]

Oh my. I best call the Governor and get him right on it. That Trump sure is a novice, unlike the moles held over from the Bush/Obama years. They know how to do it the right way. Give it time. Trump will be a pro at that game soon enough. Bet Trump will stop by and miss on McCain's grave in a couple of years. Golden Shower. How wonderfully ironic.

Me thinks thou protest too much. But, what do I know. Go ahead and get your mangina all a'Twitter over this. I will start making some sandwiches and lemonade. This should be fun, Buttercup.

[George Rebane]

MaryW 450pm - and is that not the president's legal prerogative under our constitution?