The Times had published an inaccurate story regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal.  The headline of the online article was “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.”  Later on, the Times no longer used the term “criminal inquiry” and instead said there was a “security referral.”  It was also revealed that the referral wasn’t directly looking into Hillary Clinton herself but investigating the improper handling of government information in general.

Making big corrections, especially with a story that blew up right away like this, is embarrassing for any news organization.  However, the Times also handled it incorrectly.  They should have corrected the article immediately or deleted it from their website.  They left the inaccurate story up, wrote and published a new one, and did not correct the original story until the following day.  They also should have clearly stated to the readers the errors that had been made.

In order to avoid a messy situation like this in the future, the Times should gather more sources, especially before using terms like “criminal.”  Gathering information from one political party makes the story too bias.  Officials from both parties should have been interviewed.  The Justice Department made a statement after the original story came out, making clear that it was not a criminal investigation, which did not reflect well on the Times.

“So if these allegations are so old, why are we just finding out about it now?”

That’s the big question as we delve into the dynamic of investigative journalism, and how it takes shape when tackling America’s biggest names about our most socially taboo topics.

Sometimes an important story can be dwarfed by larger events of global geopolitics or Beyoncé’s surprise album release, but sometimes, they simply  get lost amidst the noise and fade into obscurity. Such was the case in 2004 when the allegations first surfaced of Bill Cosby’s intentional drugging and molestation of several women he encountered over his decades in the entertainment industry. At first, it could be thought that such a national celebrity may be immune from such wrongdoing, and the allegations were mostly hot air, so nothing developed. Cosby continued his career for another 11 years. After crippling silence, the allegations rose to journalistic prominence once again after the concern over the omission of Cosby’s sexual past in a 500+ page biography was compounded by a viral video on social media of a stand up comic calling Cosby a rapist. Soon, several women who had never spoken out began to do so, emboldened by the collective societal shock of conscience.

Only after the silence was punctured did the media follow suit, but it’s supposed to be the other around. Journalists of all sorts must never let unanswered questions lie fallow, lest major stories like this one slip through the cracks.

Written by Aaron Mayer

This post was delayed due to a  drafting error in Blogs@Baruch. The author apologizes for the seeming irrelevance in relation to the neighboring articles.

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.