Is It Ok To Publish A True Story Meant To Be Private? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

The Politico / Overturning Roe v Wade story had me thinking about publishers in general. What responsibility, if any, do publishers have in stories like this?

And to be clear. This isn't like a whistleblower type thing where a crime or bad behavior is exposed. That's different. 

I'm talking about something that is meant to be private and somehow becomes seen by those who aren't supposed to see it. 

For a hypothetical example, let's say a staffer in the White House obtained a document that says President Biden plans to step down from office at the end of 2022 because he felt he was unable to adequately perform his job duties. Kamala Harris will assume the presidency even though he has grave concerns about her ability. 

If a publisher were to obtain that document, and they could reasonably deem it to be authentic, like Politico did with the Roe v Wade story, would it be ok for them to publish the story?

In this Roe v Wade story the reporter at Political got to see something that years of understanding on "how things work" said they weren't supposed to see.

Should reporters work to try and uncover things like this?

Should they refuse to publish something like this?

Was it a thing that they said, "If we don't publish it, someone else will so we may as well go ahead?" 

Wondering what other people thought on this.

Edit to add - I'm talking about things that are NOT a threat to National Security,

 

[FairWarning]

If it affects national security, definitely not:  

 

[Joe Bryant]

If it affects national security, definitely not:  

Agreed. I think we all agree there.

I'm talking about non national security threat things.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It shouldn't have been published, but I put the responsibility on the leaker rather than the publisher. If the leaker wanted it published, it was definitely going to be published. If not by Politico, then by Buzzfeed or WikiLeaks or the like. Knowing that, I find it hard to blame Politico for thinking, "It may as well be us."

 

[Juxtatarot]

If it’s not classified or otherwise illegal, we should expect them to publish.

 

[FairWarning]

Agreed. I think we all agree there.

I'm talking about non national security threat things.

It does seem like a lot of info about our involvement in the Ukraine is reported, mainly by NBC.  
 

I voted probably not OK as once it’s out there, you can’t undo the story.  I’m also looking at it from the perspective of rushing to make a headline and not checking facts.  

 

[John123]

I'm going to differentiate between publisher and newspaper/news source.  I think a book publisher can/should use more discretion.  But when it comes to news sources, It's their JOB to report on things.  If they were supposed to be trusted not to report on certain things we wouldn't need rules on what could be released to them.  You won't see me complain about news sources reporting on almost anything  The only thing I complain about is their bias on what they choose to report on, how they choose to frame certain things instead of just reporting the facts and letting the public decide what it means, and their choices not to report on important things that hurt "their side." 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If it's newsworthy, I think it's hard to blame a media outlet for running the story.

In your example, it would be huge, historic news to learn that Biden planned to step down and hand the presidency over to somebody (his own running mate) who he thought wasn't ready.  There's no media company on earth that wouldn't run publish that memo.

Similarly, overturning Roe is gigantic news.  If a reporter was able to confirm that the leaked opinion was genuine -- we know that it is -- they just have to run it.  I think I would probably be willing to argue that it would be a dereliction of duty not to publish it.  I'm not happy with the state of the media right now, but this is the kind of thing that I don't think media outlets should sit on.

Obviously I agree with everyone else that it's more complicated when national security is involved.

 

[squistion]

Is It Ok To Publish A True Story Meant To Be Private?

[...]

For a hypothetical example, let's say a staffer in the White House obtained a document that says President Biden plans to step down from office at the end of 2022 because he felt he was unable to adequately perform his job duties. Kamala Harris will assume the presidency even though he has grave concerns about her ability. 

[...]

If a publisher were to obtain that document, and they could reasonably deem it to be authentic, like Politico did with the Roe v Wade story, would it be ok for them to publish the story?

Should reporters work to try and uncover things like this?

Should they refuse to publish something like this?

You are covering a lot of ground here, Joe, and are asking four different questions IMO, so I can't answer the poll question as I find it ambiguous in the context of what you subsequently asked. So picking one choice might make my answer misleading as I find this discussion a bit more nuanced than just a "Yes/No is it OK to publish this?"

 

[timschochet]

Yes. 

 

[timschochet]

HL Mencken said: “the news is there to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” 

 

[The General]

To publish is the role of journalism. How they present and how they frame it is the tough part. How it is interpreted is our job. 

 

[Rich Conway]

In your example, it would be huge, historic news to learn that Biden planned to step down and hand the presidency over to somebody (his own running mate) who he thought wasn't ready.  There's no media company on earth that wouldn't run publish that memo.

I wouldn't fault anyone for running that memo either, although I'd want them to move heaven and earth to make sure it was legit first.

 

[The Football Freak]

The freedom of the press is enshrined in the constitution, and I prefer them to publish the news as opposed to not. I think the answer gets a bit more confused if people include opinion entertainment sites that huge swaths of the country confuse for real news, like Breitbart, PJ Media, Palmer Report, or Project Veritas. But as for news reported by proper news orgs? I’m 100% behind that if reported on fairly and properly. 

 

[Insomniac]

I thought this issue was dealt with in NYT vs United States on publishing the Pentagon Papers. This was classified Top Secret even though it was a history of the Vietnam War and as far as I remember didn't contain any info that endangered troops. It certainly did make lots of people in the Kennedy /Johnson admins and military leaders look bad, but making the government look bad doesn't seem like a good reason to block publication.

OTOH if release of a story is going to endanger our troops lives then that should not be published.  So I think there are cases where this type of info shouldn't be published. The leaked abortion decision and the the hypothetical "Biden resigns" don't even come close to meeting the standard I would prefer.

 

[Hastur]

I'm talking about something that is meant to be private and somehow becomes seen by those who aren't supposed to see it. 

It seems to be a broad umbrella.  Do we put sex tapes the participants didn't want released under this too? I think it qualifies..

 

[Joe Bryant]

It seems to be a broad umbrella.  Do we put sex tapes the participants didn't want released under this too? I think it qualifies..

Yes. I’m asking about a very broad umbrella. Basically things that people would prefer to be private but don’t involve national security.

 

[rockaction]

Yes. I’m asking about a very broad umbrella. Basically things that people would prefer to be private but don’t involve national security.

Joe, it's more muddled than people here would have you believe. I took a privacy course in law school. There is a tort for certain situations where private facts are disclosed by the media: it's called public disclosure of private facts. There's a test the courts apply to the "news" as printed, especially salacious rumors or gossip that are none of the public's business. This is the best summation of it I can find through a quick Google search. 

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy--public-disclosure-of-private-facts.html

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Edit to add - I'm talking about things that are NOT a threat to National Security,

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want published; everything else is public relations.”

~George Orwell (though maybe not really)

ETA:  assuming some legitimate public interest in the story.

 

[thriftyrocker]

For a hypothetical example, let's say a staffer in the White House obtained a document that says President Biden plans to step down from office at the end of 2022 because he felt he was unable to adequately perform his job duties. Kamala Harris will assume the presidency even though he has grave concerns about her ability. 

Be better. 

 

[DropKick]

Went with "Probably not..." based on my own moral compass.  However, I expect your poll to be slanted the other way and justified by greed and self interest.

 

[The Commish]

When it comes to people elected by the people to do a job and/or their appointments/staff, I dont have a problem with it being told us. 

Civil servants are supposed to reports to us. 

 

[Roy L Fewks]

IF the story involves government workers.......YES.

IF the story has national implications.....YES.

IF the story involves private citizens and has no significance to the public...........NO.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I voted probably not. But it depends on whether you believe the end justifies the means. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Be better. 

It's a hypothetical example with a hypothetical thing that would be seen as a negative. 

 

[timschochet]

I voted probably not. But it depends on whether you believe the end justifies the means. 

No it doesn’t. 
 

 

[Juxtatarot]

It's a hypothetical example with a hypothetical thing that would be seen as a negative. 

Let’s say a liberal poster started out a thread saying “let’s hypothetically say the Trump pees tapes are real”. I think you would bristle at that. To a Biden supporter, you throwing out the “too old to do his job” canard is going to get a similar reaction. I’m not at all saying you should be banned for doing this, just that it would be best for the board to avoid these types of hypotheticals.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Let’s say a liberal poster started out a thread saying “let’s hypothetically say the Trump pees tapes are real”. I think you would bristle at that. To a Biden supporter, you throwing out the “too old to do his job” canard is going to get a similar reaction. I’m not at all saying you should be banned for doing this, just that it would be best for the board to avoid these types of hypotheticals.

I think that's being too sensitive but I understand your point. I was just trying to do a hypothetical example where a leak would have serious consequences. 

Interestingly, I tried to be sensitive on this and intentionally did not mention age in the hypothetical. I probably should have avoided Biden altogether. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

IMO, how the information was obtain is of utmost importance.  If it was obtained illegally, then a news outlet should not report it without first obtaining permission from the owner of the information.

 

[Joe Bryant]

IMO, how the information was obtain is of utmost importance.  If it was obtained illegally, then a news outlet should not report it without first obtaining permission from the owner of the information.

I think that part is super interesting too.

How much effort should a news site go to on stuff like this?

Going through the trash? 

Targeting clerks on the court and befriending them hoping they might share info?

Seems like there's a LOT of gray area there. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think that part is super interesting too.

How much effort should a news site go to on stuff like this?

Going through the trash? 

Targeting clerks on the court and befriending them hoping they might share info?

Seems like there's a LOT of gray area there. 

Once you throw something out, you release ownership of the item.  So trash picking wouldn't be illegal. 

Befriending clerks is fine.  But you need to identify yourself as news so they can pass information both on and off the record.

Taking draft opinions, not meant for public consumption for whatever purposes should not be disseminated.  I look at it in the same manner as receiving stolen property.  The recipient is criminally liable.

 

[timschochet]

IMO, how the information was obtain is of utmost importance.  If it was obtained illegally, then a news outlet should not report it without first obtaining permission from the owner of the information.

Strongly disagree. As long as the news outlet didn’t themselves participate in the illegality, they’re under no obligation to do anything. 
 

An informative movie on this very subject is The Post, regarding the Pentagon Papers. That film also touches upon the subject of national security- that’s a very subjective phrase. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Befriending clerks is fine.  But you need to identify yourself as news so they can pass information both on and off the record.

Why not do it FBI infiltrating the Sopranos style? Pick a clerk you think you could get to. Befriend them in some way and earn their trust. Get them to get you a copy of the document. Then take it live?

I'm interested in more detail on how Politico obtained the document. But it seems like there isn't much talk there. 

 

[The General]

Why not do it FBI infiltrating the Sopranos style? Pick a clerk you think you could get to. Befriend them in some way and earn their trust. Get them to get you a copy of the document. Then take it live?

I'm interested in more detail on how Politico obtained the document. But it seems like there isn't much talk there. 

Doesn’t this start getting into the issue of source protection? 

Not sure how the SC (does the FBI get involved?) is looking into how the brief was obtained and making sure it wasn’t done by hacking or something illegal but the consensus is it was leaked by someone in a way that is an ethics issue and wasn’t done illegally. If I understood correctly at least. 

One thing I’d think would come out of this is that the SC will secure their info better.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Doesn’t this start getting into the issue of source protection? 

Not sure how the SC (does the FBI get involved?) is looking into how the brief was obtained and making sure it wasn’t done by hacking or something illegal but the consensus is it was leaked by someone in a way that is an ethics issue and wasn’t done illegally. If I understood correctly at least. 

I really don't know the details there. And it seems like there are a lot of potential scenarios here. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Taking draft opinions, not meant for public consumption for whatever purposes should not be disseminated.  I look at it in the same manner as receiving stolen property.  The recipient is criminally liable.

I'm sure the current crop of Supremes will get about the business of overturning precedent soon enough, but that's not the law.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'm interested in more detail on how Politico obtained the document. But it seems like there isn't much talk there. 

There's no talk because the law is clear and Politico is performing the exact function that a news organization is supposed to perform.

They can't hire or encourage someone to break the law (which is why Julian Assange is in so much trouble and Project Veritas might be), but they can publish almost anything. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm sure the current crop of Supremes will get about the business of overturning precedent soon enough, but that's not the law.

The question wasn't meant to what is, but what we think it should be.  So stating what the current law is doesn't really further the discussion of what your opinion is.  

 

[The General]

I really don't know the details there. And it seems like there are a lot of potential scenarios here. 

If we go with the idea that a clerk leaked this, if I understand correctly then doing so isn’t illegal. It’s unethical and is damaging to the trust between colleagues. 

If this is accurate a reporter who obtained this then should not be forced to say where they got it from - protection of sources 

The SC should investigate themselves and determine their processes that allowed this info to be leaked and make changes to how their info is tracked and shared. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

There's no talk because the law is clear and Politico is performing the exact function that a news organization is supposed to perform.

They can't hire or encourage someone to break the law (which is why Julian Assange is in so much trouble), but they can publish anything.

How exactly does this work with a site like Politico on this? I know they get to have protected sources, but do they have to explain to someone more details on what they did? More to the point, how do we know they did not break the law?

 

[Joe Bryant]

They can't hire or encourage someone to break the law (which is why Julian Assange is in so much trouble), but they can publish anything.

On the hypothetical example of using an undercover plant to try and befriend a clerk in the FBI/Sopranos style where the undercover person befriends the clerk and is given access by the clerk, there wouldn't be laws broken would there?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How exactly does this work with a site like Politico on this? I know they get to have protected sources, but do they have to explain to someone more details on what they did? More to the point, how do we know they did not break the law?

You don't.

But no one has to prove they didn't break a law unless someone presents evidence they did.  At least in the US.  For a short while longer, probably.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You don't.

But no one has to prove they didn't break a law unless someone presents evidence they did.  At least in the US.  For a short while longer, probably.

Interesting. Thanks.

So in theory a hacker could steal the document and give the document to Politico and Politico never has to say anything to anyone using the protection of sources?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

On the hypothetical example of using an undercover plant to try and befriend a clerk in the FBI/Sopranos style where the undercover person befriends the clerk and is given access by the clerk, there wouldn't be laws broken would there?

Yes.  If a journalist did that or the clerk did it on their behalf and the documents were protected for some reason (even in 2022 FOIA makes a shocking amount of stuff accessible unless someone blocks it) it would be a problem. 

That's exactly what happened with Assange -- he helped someone else break into a classified system (allegedly).

 

[The General]

You don't.

But no one has to prove they didn't break a law unless someone presents evidence they did.  At least in the US.  For a short while longer, probably.

At first I laughed at the darkness of this line.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Interesting. Thanks.

So in theory a hacker could steal the document and give the document to Politico and Politico never has to say anything to anyone using the protection of sources?

"never" might be problematic, but basically.

Look up The Pentagon Papers case.  It's interesting history and hits on exactly this.  Nixon went to court to try and block the Post from publishing stolen papers about the Vietnam War that showed what was really happening there (so huge public interest).

 

[The General]

I wonder how the SC secures their info. Alito seems like a password on a sticky note under the keyboard type. 

 

[The Commish]

Is the Supreme Court immune to FOIA requests?  Honest question....I don't know the answer.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

At first I laughed at the darkness of this line.

I'd bet money that in my lifetime corporations and the mega wealthy are successful in using the courts to stop the press from publishing true information with an obvious public interest.

 

[The General]

I'd bet money that in my lifetime corporations and the mega wealthy are successful in using the courts to stop the press from publishing true information with an obvious public interest.

Yeah that does seem to be a possibility.

There Is always the internet and what that becomes to get info out and there will always be people willing to take risks to publish which hopefully keeps this issue constantly reviewed by the courts.