Wikileaks, an apparent conduit for Putin’s Russia, released
emails stolen (a blunter, more descriptive term than “hacked”) from prominent
Hillary Clinton booster, John Podesta, a former Congressman.
The American press, particularly Fox News outlets, highlighted
sections that would reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee. Should that have happened?
Of course, the subject matter was topical but the source
was not legitimate.
In a criminal context, receiving known stolen property is a
crime. Correspondence, in electronic
form or otherwise, qualifies.
However, for several reasons, media firms publishing
purloined material will not be prosecuted.
But the newsworthy nature of the emails and the lack of
liability for publishing them is not adequate justification for their dissemination.
To give Wikileaks/Russia what it wants – the distribution
of the stolen material – encourages more thievery.
To be sure, supposedly responsible publications (for some)
from the conservative Wall Street Journal
to the liberal Washington Post will
reply that they have no journalistic choice.
Other media will publish the information anyway so there is no harm in
their doing so as well.
But how about taking a seemingly anachronistic
position: it’s wrong!
Perhaps if media companies re-adopt standards of determining
what’s fit to print (and stolen emails do not qualify), change may come.
As an example, information contained in the National Enquirer, however current it
may seem, is viewed with suspicion by the general media because of its
source. If a more jaundiced eye were
taken by them of Wikileaks releases both as to reliability and propriety,
perhaps media in general would be forced to adhere to standards to avoid the shame
and ridicule that would accompany irresponsible behavior.
Alas, The Sensible
Conservative, as hard-headed as he wishes to be, must concede that this may
be a flight of fancy. But then,
President Obama is not the only one possessing hope and wishing for
change.
No comments:
Post a Comment