From a journalistic standpoint I believe that Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, the Guardian and those involved in reporting the story had a duty to publish the information brought forth by Edward Snowden. With the advent of technology, the use of telecommunications has been crucial in the development of countless industries. The ease with which an individual can transfer information across thousands of miles, essentially the world, has broadened the horizons of millions. However, with all the potential good that a global network could provide, it can also be a catalyst for evil. Many organizations have recruited hundreds of thousands of people in the same way that armies or corporate banks have recruited new members. In the post 9/11 Era the DOH’, DOD, CIA, NSA and a myriad of other government agencies have made the issue ‘national security’ of the upmost importance. The umbrella term of ‘national security’ has been the justification for, as it a turns out, the violation of millions of peoples rights to privacy. The core issue with the ethics of the data collection by the NSA, aside from the blatant disregard for the right to privacy, was the lack of checks and balance. They lied to the agencies that, in theory, should have been the authorizing their actions.

In the opening scenes of CitizenFour a description of metadata and the implications of collecting it on a mass scale  are given. In short, by looking at the metadata collected from an individual, a profile can be made of behavior and then flagged if deemed appropriate. However the government, more specifically the NSA, validated an initiative that allowed them to collect indiscriminately across borders violating the privacy of millions of people. Jacob Appelbaum, in a scene toward the end of the documentary states that, “…what we used to call liberty and freedom, we now call privacy…”. Soon after Mr. Appelbaum equates surveillance to control which I contend is contextually inappropriate. While the government’s actions were deemed unconstitutional by federal courts, the reasoning behind the collection of data (not the illegal collection of data, however, the lawful collection of data from those already flagged) is sound. The programs have stopped a number of terrorist organizations from recruiting, planning, and attacks.

I believe that because the NSA’s showed a blatant disregard for both the unconstitutionality of their actions and the ethical imperative of their inception, news organizations were obliged and had the duty to inform the public. On the NSA.gov website they state under ‘Our Values’, “We will protect national security interest by adhering to the highest standards of behavior”. There needs to be balance, governed by the judiciary, between what supersedes conventional order due to national security.

Getting your story and information to the media first is a critical part in the news industry. Within the  media coverage in today’s society  everyone tries to get the finest story and be the first to report it to the world. In this scenario. With the advancements in our everyday technology it is only natural for information and data to be sent at a fast and efficient rate.  Although there were conflict issues in regards to Hillary Clinton and the use of her private email with classified documents.

Without taking proper precautions the the New York Times ended up diving into this situataion without first confirming whether or not the given information was accurate or correct. Actions were taken by inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies. They sent  referrals to the Justice Department requesting a “criminal investigation” into whether Mrs. Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information” on the email account.

Although during the course of the week from Thursday to Sundaywhen a final correction appeared in print the various inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along. There were little explanation to the readers. Mistakes such as these tend to result in the destruction of these peoples careers .  So there is reason to be more careful when dealing with any topic.  It is vital and highly important for  news organizations to always gather all the proper information and deliver the facts to the public.

It is really interesting to understand how and why different people react differently to Edward Snowden’s story. From a journalist’s perspective, Snowden is a hero, someone to be praised for enlightening the American people about its government’s indiscriminate surveillance of civilians. However, from the mindset of others – for example, government officials – Edward Snowden is a traitor that should be prosecuted for treason. Within the context of the story, I personally believe that Edward Snowden is both – a traitor for violating legalities that forbade him from publicizing classified information, but a hero, too, for doing so (but to me, his status of “hero” overshadows that of “traitor”).

Even when confronted with situations such as the Edward Snowden story, it can be said that journalists and news organizations have a duty to publish information granted to them by whistleblowers, in alignment with both their commercial job descriptions and the nature of their commitment to the public. The purpose of the news media is to keep the public informed, and the First Amendment allows for freedom of the press as a sort of essential checks-and-balances system for keeping the government in line. For cases like Snowden’s, in which the whistleblower is so determined to counteract wrongdoing that s/he is willing to risk any sort of personal consequences, news organizations must make it a priority to release information to the general population (while redacting that which may truly cause harm, such as in the case of future military plots). In this respect, Laura Poitras truly fulfilled her duty as a journalist: By putting personal concerns and risk aside and ensuring that the American people were made aware of governmental abuse of power, Poitras did a great service for the American people by releasing Snowden’s documents. With that being said, it is very unfortunate that Poitras and the news media are at least moderately protected under the First Amendment while Edward Snowden himself must live in exile indefinitely.

As mentioned in the New Yorker article, the way that Poitras framed the film was somewhat confusing, but by the time Citizenfour was released, the information within the documentary was already “old news.” I personally thought that the movie was fascinating and did an excellent job of shedding light upon Snowden’s motives for releasing information. For that reason, Citizenfour can be considered more of a moral analysis than a documentary – it definitely allows its audience enough thinking space to consider the ethics of Snowden’s situation, and for that reason, the film has the potential to remain relevant for all future cases of whistleblowing.

The film “Citizenfour” by Laura Poitras, depicts NSA spying around the world, and the whistleblowers or reporters that voice the words of the people. Edward Snowden was once known as a infrastructure analyst for NSA in Hawaii. His job mainly was to design programs to help the U.S government spy more closely on individuals through email, call logs, GPS tracking locations, etc. Laura who is a maker of documentaries was the first person to learn of these files, and was in secret contact with Snowden for a period of time until they met in Hong Kong to film twelve-minute video in which Snowden introduced himself to the world. After 9/11, the government started spying on everybody in the United States. A program launched called Stellar Wind collected metadata or data mining various telecommunication devices such as Internet activity, telephone conversations, and email.

Prior to 2013 nobody knew that the NSA was using these programs to spy on people until whistleblowers of the NSA stood up such as William Binney and Edward Snowden. After being contacted by Laura, Glenn Greenwald commenced an interview with Edward on the entire story. In result, the government issued his arrest on accounts of espionage or treason on the country. However, with that the reporters were able to fulfill their niche of providing people with evidence they need to be more self-aware. In this country we are being told lies day after day. For example, during a Congressional hearing in 2012, (NSA Director) Keith Alexander denied all allegations of spying, and that it must be court ordered. It only takes one person to make a difference, and I am glad we have righteous whistleblowers or reporters that get the news to the people no matter what.

As a journalist, it is your civic duty to provide real and raw news to the public, regardless of the content. In this specific case, Edward Snowden risked his freedom when he reached out to a journalist that he knew would be able to assist him in transcribing his story correctly to the world: Laura Poitras. Ms. Poitras creates a documentary in which reveals that the NSA has been violating our freedom of privacy by spying on us through different forms. In one part of the article The Holder of Secrets, it states how in one instance Verizon was handed over it’s existing customers’ phone logs to the NSA. These means of spying were created after the attack of 9/11 and paranoia sank in, but using it to violate the rights that this country was built upon is something totally different.

In the actual documentary, Citizenfour, the interview with Edward Snowden takes place in a hotel room located in Hong Kong. His fear and nervousness is present throughout the interview and unfortunately will be the way he will live for the rest of his life if he isn’t arrested. The constant thought that comes to mind is do we really have freedom in this country? Does the country decipher what is important for it’s citizens to know and what isn’t? How can we hold faith in a government and country that creates taboo discussions for its people? I can understand that this information was taken without consent, but did they ask for consent when requesting personal phone records? The more interesting action is that the focus is on punishing the whistleblower rather then giving an explanation and/ or justification for the leak of information. The public has a right to know about such an issue, especially if it is affecting their wellbeing directly. I don’t think Edward deserves to be imprisoned for standing up for not only himself, but for America overall.

When the New York Times posted this article about Hillary Clinton and the use of her private email with classified documents, it seems that they jumped the gun a bit.  In today’s media coverage everyone is trying to get the best story and be the first to report it.  The fact that everyone is walking around with a cell phone camera and the internet giving them the ability to blog about it has raised the stakes for reporting news.

The New York Times jumped the gun with information that was not confirmed and ended up having to make retractions.   Reporting that a criminal investigation was requested and then after getting facts from the Justice department that they were investigating the security of the documents not a criminal case.  The original article was published on Thursday and not until Friday afternoon did the correction get published.

These kind of mistakes hurt and destroy peoples careers.  When dealing with any topic news organizations must gather all the proper information and deliver the facts to the public.

Watching Citizen four was not what I expected.  I remember this story as it broke but I really didn’t pay much attention to it.  After seeing this documentary I am a little concerned about my lack of interest in this story and what the government was accused of doing.  This is a complete breach of privacy and I feel uncomfortable using any electronic devices.  I remember in one of the recent Batman movies Batman was looking for the villain and he couldn’t find him and he used a program similar to the one the US government was using to track down the villain.  The conversation Bruce had with Alford was similar the the US’s reason for the program.  Batman said it was necessary to catch the villain.  Alford said at what length are we willing to go to catch someone?  Will we violate millions of peoples privacy to do good.  This is how I feel about the government using this program.

I feel the media had a responsibility to report this story.  We were losing our right to privacy in the name of safety but who was policing the people using the program.  Was anyone watching and listening in on their wives/husbands, friends, family members etc.  The part that was even more scary was the government forcing company’s to allow them to track our every move.   How much of our civil liberties much we give up?  What’s worse is that we did not give permission to have our privacy breached.

The part where the U.S. government was spying on other nations is still a shock to me that more has not been done.  If this happened to our nation wars would be fought.  Americans are seen as bullies and illegally spying on other nations could have jeopardized their security.  How can we be trusted as a nation.

I think this country does a great job of shifting the interest of the public because when ever something major is happening another story pops up to take our interest of the real issue.  How is this not still a topic today.  I feel the news organizations should still report on this more so than the Kardashians or Catlyn Jenner.

The paranoia is palpable in Laura Poitras’s documentary, Citizenfour. The documentary is centered around Edward Snowden, a former contractor at Boos Allen, who leaked various NSA files that were collecting data, both personal and politically related, from the general public. You can feel Snowden’s fear and skepticism  in explaining to journalists the brevity of what the NSA had been recording.

Snowden had access to multiple governmental files from “the list” of people that the NSA was watching to completely personal information that the general public did not know what recorded. When explaining what the NSA has done, Snowden makes sure to unplug all phones and is incredibly weary when the hotel fire alarm in Hong Kong begins to go off. He knows that “they” are watching. This constant fear that Snowden is living in  is not in vain.

When Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, was asked if the NSA was tapping into the personal files of the general public, he quickly replied no. With Snowden’s data proving directly otherwise, how can the general public be able to trust the government? The most shocking part of the invasiveness of the government is that a majority of the personal information that was retrieved had nothing to do with the government. Additionally, Snowden’s fear of death for bot himself and his loved ones should not be a valid fear. The fact that we lived in such a potentially oppressive society infers that the government has other things to hide in regards to getting information on the public.

The fact that the government got into the information from 9 internet companies shows the massive lengths that the intellegence community was willing to go to. In regards to the article “The Holder of Secrets”, Laura Poitras also had first hand encounters with the NSA trying to bring her down because of the information she had gotten ahold of. When the government caught wind of her films questioning governmental decisions after the Patriot Act following 9/11, Poitras was stopped at security at an airport where they tried to seize her phone. Today Laura Poitras is on the list and realizes that her life will never be the same in terms of maintaining privacy.

With all of the technology that we are exposed to today, it is a journalists duty to educate the public on how their information can always be found. With the way we can link our Metrocard to all of our spending habits on our debit card, metadata can track us always, but not always in the most accurate of ways. When this point was brought up in Citizenfour, I finally realized that it is a journalists duty to expose these matters. Our world is no longer private- this is a truth that we need to understand while not fearing life like others on “the list” do. We need to be aware that there are laws that we need to abide, but the government needs to realize that there are laws for them to abide by.

As Obama declared int he beginning of the film, there should be, “no more ignoring the law when it’s inconvenient.”

In the case of Edward Snowden, news organizations had a moral obligation to publish the classified records he came forward with. It is important that US citizens know the gravity of the situation and the depth of information the NSA is able to collect in such a short period of time. Cases like this are what makes freedom of press and the first amendment so important.

One particular reason why these documents should be published is because of the NSA’s refusal to admit that they were collecting information at all. In several clips shown in the documentary, when on trial the NSA responded “no” to all questions regarding the collection or ability to collect data on US citizens. Since this is so far from the truth, American’s have a right to know the reality of the situation and the news organization have a duty to publish what they know.

The major issue with disclosing such classified documents is that it puts both the whistleblower and the journalist at a very high risk of being put in jail for life. Snowden writes to Poitras “No one, not even my most trusted confidante, is aware of my intentions, and it would not be fair for them to fall under suspicion for my actions. You may be the only one who can prevent that, and that is by immediately nailing me to the cross rather than trying to protect me as a source.” This quote displayed the extreme care taken in moving forward with exposing government records along with the risk taken by everyone involved (both directly and indirectly).

          Sometimes in life you gotta do what’s right despite the                   consequences that follow. These were constant themes that were focused more upon the documentary Citizenfour as welll as the article The Holderof Secrets. Throughout history our society has constantly tackled and fought for ournatural rights as citizens. One of these rights in particular is the Freedom of the Press. Guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from Censorship.

      Reasons can be justified that these surveillance programs were set up after the 9/11 attack. Initially the primary purpose was to look for potential  terrorists in their searches, in order to protect the security of America. However according to the article, The Holder of Secrets, it seems that the National Security Agency is using this intelligence collection “for political, rather than legal” reasons.

        Being the “whistleblower” in the news industry can have various results. Whether for better or worse there are always consequences. The battle never ends for journalists, state power verus the people’s power.  News organizations had a duty to publish the classified documents that Edward Snowden provided . Everyone has a right to the truth despitehow painful it might be to hear.If citizens were truly aware of their monitoring by the National Security Agency  it would have possibly held back our intellectual ability to learn and discover. Our society would be afraid to use the internet as a means of learning and enhancing their knowledge through the internet if it meant their use of the internet could possibly be checked by the National Security Agency.