Striking the balance between a free press and protecting national security is a long-established tension in the United States, and one that frequently puts the media at odds with the administrations they cover. As much as the notion of a free press is held sacred, both culturally and institutionally through the First Amendment, those charged with leading the country too often have less appreciation for press freedom when it is practically applied. The Obama administration has established for itself a troubling track record in this regard, focusing on media sources who reveal information about administration activities. That focus can have a dangerous chilling effect on the media, thereby limiting the level of information available to the public on how the government conducts its business. The most egregious recent example of this is the administration’s intimidation campaign against the Associated Press.
The AP broke a story last year revealing the details of a thwarted terror plot uncovered by a CIA operation in Yemen. Following that story, which the AP was careful to run only after receiving a green light – “We held that story until the government assured us that national security concerns had passed,” said Gary Pruitt, the agency’s president, in a statement this week – the Justice Department conducted a vast inquest examining phone records of more than 100 journalists across 20 phone lines and four offices. The premise, said Attorney General Eric Holder, is that the story resulted from a leak of epic proportions. “I have been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I have ever seen,” Holder told reporters Tuesday. So much so that Holder felt compelled to rather extreme means. He is not moving from this position and defends it with predictable but unconvincing rhetoric: “It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk. And trying to determine who was responsible for that I think required very aggressive action.”
It is difficult to see how the story put people at risk when it was published after the terror plot was disrupted and with, as the AP maintains, the government’s blessing. It appears that the AP worked carefully to keep that essential balance between press freedom and national security in place, choosing to hold the story. Doing so demonstrates conscientiousness of the media’s role in maintaining that equilibrium, as well as a commitment to protecting sources who entrust them with critical information. The AP operated in a manner that builds trust in its newsgathering. To have the Obama administration conduct a sweeping investigation into that operation reveals a culture of control that trumps a commitment to fundamental American ideals. Sending a clear message to that disloyal or loose-lipped officials will not be tolerated is the president’s prerogative; doing so by treading on press freedom is not. Conducting a widespread examination of a news operation goes far beyond what is necessary and appropriate for controlling leaks. It brings the media into a fight it should not enter and erodes trust in government transparency. Eric Holder and, more importantly, President Obama overstepped with the AP.
