The difficulty in taking a side on a debate like this inevitably boils down to one simple question: who gets to be the guardian of society?

On one hand, Snowden’s actions are heroic; he exposed a massive governmental infraction against the democratic spirit of our country. On the other hand, though, Snowden’s actions are nothing short of seditious; he revealed to our national enemies the secrets and scope of  America’s surveillance program.

So which hand do you hold?

If you think of Snowden as a gallant crusader for people’s individual liberties and the sacrosanct right to privacy, then you probably view the media (and journalists in general) as the the guardians of society. They are the ones who protect us from corruption by ousting inept officials and lambasting them in the press. They are the ones who reveal the wrongdoings of massive corporations and make clear the avarice of the 1%. And they are the ones who provide the fodder for cultural discussion and artistic advancement.

All of these are true, and they are useful (even necessary) aspects of journalists as they stand now – the guardians of our society. But even they need limits. And these limits are pushed when they trespass into the realms of the other guardian of society – our government.

If you believe in our government as a bastion of liberal, democratic ideals who will always look out for the downtrodden in the Land of the Free (or at least, if you believe government can or should do that), then it’s difficult to see how a whistleblower like Snowden is helping the cause. On issues of national security, the government has to do what it must in order to protect its citizens. No one voted for Snowden; he has no right revealing national secrets and potentially endangering the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

Whether the guardians will be our politicians or our columnists is up to us; we’d better make the right decision.

Written by Aaron Mayer

Yes I absolutely think news organizations had a duty to publish the classified documents Edward Snowden provided.  As it showed in the documentary, the NSA was lying to American citizens about the surveillance they do.  The directors of the NSA lied directly to the Senate when they were asked if the NSA hacks into emails and cell phone records.

Laura Poitras created films about America post 9/11 so Edward Snowden decided to give her the information he had about the NSA.  Poitras met up with Snowden in Hong Kong and brought journalist Glenn Greenwald to interview Snowden.  Greenwald and another journalist from the United Kingdom interview Snowden in his hotel room and Snowden explains his reasoning behind becoming a whistleblower.  Snowden explains the gravity of the lack of privacy in America.  The American government can hack into your emails, cell phones, Google searches, and credit cards at all times.  Snowden says this lack of privacy means we aren’t free.  He says your intellectual curiosity becomes censored if you’re afraid the government will have a problem with what you’re searching for on the internet.

Greenwald publishes stories about Snowden hours after interviewing him.  The documentary shows Greenwald going on CNN and explaining why the story is so important.  The government has said that they look into records and collect metadata on people that have any sort of threat on national security.  Snowden revealed that the government received phone records from AT&T and Verizon which is a massive invasion of privacy because most of that information had nothing to do with terrorism or threats to national security.

The documentary also showed the trial in which AT&T customers tried to sue when they discovered their phone records had been released.  The defense for the NSA tells the judges that a different branch of government should be handling this case.  He says that he cannot share what the NSA has done without a huge upset from the American people and without jeopardizing the U.S. government.  Later on, the film showed different newspapers getting ready to publish Snowden documents including Tempora.  However, Poitras says they are afraid of how the U.S. government will react.  This part of the film is important, because with free speech and free press, news outlets should not have a fear of being punished for explaining to citizens what their government is doing.

I believe that news organization absolutely had a duty to publish the classified documents that he provided. If not for instances like this one, there is no accountability in terms of government. Snowden was being charged with espionage, which essentially means that there is no way for him to legally be absolved from his “crime,” whether the government was commiting its own crimes against the public or not. This type of hipocrisy needed to be exposed to the public. Unfortunately, however, I do not believe that the exposure of these documents to the public did anyone any justice. By that, I mean, I don’t think that the NSA will change its ways, and I don’t believe that Americans will have any more privacy due to this situation. Instead, perhaps, the NSA will better cover their own tracks in the future.

It may seem extremely obvious, but I think that the situation could have easily been avoided if the Times had avoided the usage of anonymous sources. As stated in Sulivan’s opinion piece regarding this issue, anonymous sources inherently lack accountability regarding their accuracy. If the Times wants to maintain their reputation as a accurate source of news they must take care to examine their sources and make sure that the facts are accurate. Although it may be tempting to be the first organization to report a story, the competitiveness must be balanced with care for accuracy. Some customers have lost their trust in the Times as a result of this issue and are even demanding refunds.

I think that the Times is generally doing a great job but to make sure that this kind of issue doesn’t happen again, they should implement a system of checks where the editor might question the reporter about the facts presented in the story. In addition, they should make sure that the facts can be verified independently via a second source.

I think that what happened with the reporting of the Hillary Clinton emails is that the Times simply got ahead of themselves with the desire to post what was potentially one of the biggest news stories of our time. They didn’t take the time to thoroughly check their sources or attempt to get a source that is more reliable rather than an anonymous one that could never truly be confirmed. Their use of the word “criminal” in the headline also mislead people and prevented them from understanding what was really going on. Their desire for clicks overpowered their desire to keep their information reliable. What the Times should have done was take more time in confirming the information and their sources. An accusation of this magnitude should be extremely thoroughly researched. What has happened because of this article can potentially ruin Clinton’s run for president because even though it may not be completely true, it is now planted in the minds of the American people. A paper as prestigious as the New York Times should prioritize the reliability of their information rather than getting ahead of the competition.

The Times completely blew the story of Hillary Clinton’s email usage out of proportion because of the fact that they did not check the credibility of the resources they were using. Due to the competitive nature of news organizations trying to report on stories as quickly as possible, The Times published a piece on Hillary Clinton as soon as they received information about her email usage. They did not bother to confirm the information they received and labeled her usage as “criminal” activity. This was a big mistake on their part, but there was also the fact that the edits made to their reports were not noted. They did not bother to own up to their mistake until much later on. They not only put their credibility on the line, but also threatened to hurt Hillary Clinton’s image.

Despite the competitive nature of news reporting, The Times should have prioritized the accuracy of the information they were dealing with. They also should have taken a more cautious approach with their wording, especially because they did not confirm the details of the story. Using words such as “criminal” may help get more viewers, but it was simply not true in this case.

News organizations did the right thing by releasing the documents provided to them by Edward Snowden. The actions taken by the NSA were an obvious violation of our right to privacy. If news organizations did not publish the documents provided to them, they would not have fulfilled their duty as reporters and journalists. The documentary portrays the NSA as actively keeping an eye on a large number of individuals. The NSA went as far as getting information from mobile service companies such as Verizon to obtain information. The article describes Snowden’s actions as suicide. If a person is willing to risk his life in order for news organizations to shed light on a matter such as this, it only makes sense for news organizations to put their best foot forward and release the documents to the best of their abilities. The documents were not necessarily detrimental to the government in the sense the publics knowledge of the NSA’s actions does not actually reveal who or what they are keeping an eye on. The reports only reveal our invasion of privacy, not the specific details, which might put certain people in danger. Reporting and releasing the documents is the responsibility of the news organizations as it keeps the government in check.

I believe that the news organization did the right thing by releasing the documents to the public. One of the things that we went over during class was the press’ responsibility to inform the public about potential government abuse. By releasing the documents that Snowden uncovered, the press was fulfilling its duty to the public. Poitras, Snowden’s videographer, went  through many personal hardships so that the story would be released. She had to take multiple security measures and always be on the lookout for someone or something keeping an eye an her, In addition, Snowden understood the consequences of his actions. The  fact that he went through a decision that he knew was not good for him indicates the level of conviction he held about he documents. He knew he may be jailed but blew the whistle because he truly believed in change.

I believe that as an American citizen, I should at least have the right whats going on. Even though classified documents can contain sensitive info, I believe that the people have a right to know and that the press should be obligated to provide it for them.

There were several areas that The New York Times went wrong, with the first being the editor’s selection of words. Based on the diction, the article falsely implied that Hilary Clinton committed a specific act of “criminal inquiry.” Although The New York Times attempted to correct their errors, as stated by Margaret Sullivan, “…you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.”

Another issue is the lack of credibility from the sole primary source. As stated the anonymous source was “sent back again and again.” As reputable of a newspaper that The New York Times is you would expect more accuracy and credibility, especially when it comes to legal charges against a public figure. Anonymous sources are elements that you would expect more from a tabloid.

Many of the emails were not labeled as “classified,” in Clinton’s personal e-mail, therefore it shows that she was not hiding legitimate information. The biggest mistake The Times made was not notifying their readers of the corrections. The information submitted to readers was inaccurate and showed lack of credibility. They could have retracted the information and made sure there was a note sent to readers via email or print with factual information.

The NYTimes published a story online indicating that Hillary Clinton was the focus of a criminal inquiry brought by the Justice Department having to do with Clinton’s mishandling of classified government documents. The headline read ‘Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email’ driving massive amounts of online traffic. However, the Justice Department had not issued a ‘criminal inquiry’ directed toward Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information but a ‘security inquiry’ about the general mishandling of classified information. The NYTimes was delinquent in revising the misreported information and as a result readers lost confidence in the Times’ ability to publish accurate, verified and un-bias information.

Margaret Sullivan, the author of an Op-ed published in the Times on the 27th, believes that the misreporting was due to the elevated level of competition between news-outlets to report the latest scoop and lack of transparency after the fact.

There has always been competition amongst news outlets to break first on a story, especially one involving a prominent politician. However, with the rise of online journalism the level of competition has increased dramatically. News-outlets are invested in breaking a story first which has caused instances of mis-reporting due to inaccurate information. One of the problems that the Times ran into while gathering the information to publish the HRC article were ‘unnamed sources’. No matter the track record or certainty reporters have with unnamed sources they risk a higher level of accountability. If a source is willing to publish his/her name then he/she is accountable for the information given to a news-outlet.

I believe that, for the most part, trusted news-outlets do a good job reporting the news. To my knowledge it is only when there is a ‘scandal’ that facts get crossed and misinformation redacted. The only possible way to combat this issue is to hold a story until you can report it with absolute (or nearly absolute) certainty. And when something is misreported to revise the mistake and explain why to readers in order to maintain a level of trust and decency.