The case of Edward Snowden is complicated when it comes to reporting because the information he brought forth is extremely controversial. Exposing him will change his life forever and it must be very difficult to be the reporter that is chosen to do it. That being said, news organizations are meant to inform us and keep us aware of the fact that any government can become too power hungry. They are there to remind us that there is a line that should not be crossed. The information that Edward Snowden presented definitely should have been published because it showed the American people that the line was definitely crossed. It is understandable that a country can become paranoid after a devastating event like 9/11, but the government should still have been able to keep their actions in accordance with the beliefs of this nation. I think Laura Poitras should be looked at as a role model for journalists and aspiring journalists alike. The article stated how difficult it was for Poitras to watch all the footage she had collected and compared Snowden’s actions to a suicide. What her and Glen Greenwald gave to the public was the opportunity to put an end to the overstepping of their government, or at least try to. The documents they leaked helped to stop an infringement on people’s privacy and that is the pinnacle of what journalists are meant to do.

The greatest weakness amongst the public is our susceptibility to ignorance. As the old saying goes, “Knowledge is power” and when organizations with greater resources purposely leave the public in the dark, they create a public that is by default worse off. When organizations with great power, such as government agencies, do not keep their public informed, who then will? A public that only knows parts of a story or perhaps no part of the story at all, falls prey to victimization. This is exactly what happened with the case of the NSA.

In the film CitizenFour, a clip of Barack Obama giving a press conference is shown where he says that he does not find people like Edward Snowden to be a true patriot for releasing the private classified information about the NSA. Obama says that the American public would want fair trials and reviews conducted by courts to monitor failings within the NSA. However, earlier in the movie, we saw that when the NSA was being reviewed by government officials, the director of the NSA, blatantly lied about the NSA not having access to American citizens’ private information such as their cell phone usage, Internet usage, etc.

So when things like this happen and people who we are expected to trust, willfully perjure, who does the public turn to? Who can we turn to? The clear answer is the media. Individuals within the public do not have the resources to find out when their own government is committing crimes against them. But people like Poitras and Greenwald do. They are vetted and well seasoned journalists who have the prowess to protect the public from the one entity that is supposed to be protecting us.

Is there a duty to publish classified documents? Yes and no. There is a duty when it directly affects the public’s interests, which in this case it did. As was stated in the film, using metadata, the NSA can virtually track you at any given point and reasonably accuse of something you did not do, by piecing together a story with facts, but without context. That is dangerous. How can the public trust its government when the government feels like it can’t trust the public?

It is reasonable to withhold certain documents from the public if it puts the country or the country’s interests at stake. That is fair and agreed upon. However, the duty of journalists as the “Fourth Estate” is to check that our government is not committing heinous crimes and worse, using taxpayer money to do so, and worst of all, using these resources against the taxpayers themselves.

The citizens of this country have a lot to worry about. We are concerned about healthcare, the war overseas, poverty, underfunded public education, immigration, and the list goes on, But the only reason we have legitimate concern for all of these things is because a trusted source delivers to us the facts about these things. Then we are able to form our own thoughts and opinions on them and try and come up with viable solutions and use our government as a means to achieve it. But how can we understand the problem of national security that our government is trying to address when it is all a secret? Are we to live in constant fear forever that Big Brother is watching?

No. We need journalists like Poitras and Greenwald to uncover what can be done on the public’s end to end this violation on every American citizen and on citizens abroad committed by our government. It is unfair that Poitras has to live in exile in Berlin. It is unfair that, as stated in the article, she feels like there are microphones facing her apartment. Is it paranoia? Maybe. Is it legitimate? Yes, it clearly is. And without her and others like her, we would not know it was legitimate.

It is unfair that our government has not only the resources to launch a campaign against its own citizens, but that it chooses to do so, and poses it as “in the public’s interest.” As a democratic nation, we have the right to decide for ourselves what is in our best interests. And if we feel that being watched or using resources to send a drone to follow someone’s house is not the best allocation of those resources, then we need to present another more viable option. One that does not violate our rights.

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.”