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.

In the case of Edward Snowden, I believe that the news organizations had the right to publish documents pertaining to the NSA surveillance programs. When these surveillance programs were set up after the 9/11 attack, the primary purpose was to look for possible terrorists in their searches, to protect the security of America. However according to the article, The Holder of Secrets, it seems that the NSA is using this intelligence collection “for political, rather than legal” reasons.

Laura Poitras, who made the documentary on Snowden, agrees that the NSA is overstepping its boundaries with surveillance. As a person who wanted to show the truth behind the Iraq war in her films, she had set a target on her back, becoming one of the 1.2 million on the watch list. Poitras is not a terrorist, she has nothing to be under watch for, other than the fact that she was making videos that exposed America to the secret missions that the government was doing. Being under watch, Laura didn’t feel like she could talk on a phone or use the internet freely. Many people have felt the oppression of not having their privacy by the government putting a watch over them.

In the movie “Citizenfour”, a scene is shown where congress questioned Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, on their surveillance program. He was asked if whether the NSA intercepts American’s emails, cell phone conversations, google searches, text messages, amazon orders, and bank records. To each question, Alexander calmly said no. However, you see in both the article and in the movie that Poitras is scared to use her cell phone and internet because she is afraid that she is being watched. Her emails as well as Edward’s emails are encrypted, giving an eerie feeling that they are in a rocky territory,  that at any moment they could be found and thrown into jail. In the black screen of the documentary, these people finally have a sense of privacy and liberty, something everyone is supposed to feel but they do not.

Coming out with these documents in the news, where the public can see what the government is doing, makes it known that people are being watched and they are not as safe in their little cocoon like they believe themselves to be. When asked what judicial consent is required for the NSA to intercept communications and information involving American citizens, Keith Alexander replied it was the FBI who was in charge, basically the government. And if the government is in charge, they could do what they want and claim it’s for “security reasons”.  They can claim that whatever they do is for national security but that leaves a question mark as to why drones are administered in the ending of the movie to watch over millions of people. Not people who are terrorists, but who might be whistle blowers.

It’s important that we aren’t left in the dark when it comes to what our government is doing. And if it takes new papers to get the message out and whistle blowers risking their lives to help Americans save their freedom, news organizations have the duty to enlighten the public. Otherwise, how will we ever know what is happening in the undergrounds of our country?

Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill were the journalists who interviewed Edward Snowden as part of Laura Poitras’ documentary entitled Citizenfour. Snowden was a classified official working at Booz Allen Hamilton, who received all his tasks from the National Security Agency. Both journalists had a right to report the classified documents they were given by Snowden. It is the peoples right to know if they are being monitored, but it might impact society negatively. If people know they are being watched, it might hinder their intellectual ability.

In one of the scenes in the hotel room in Hong Kong, China, Edward Snowden says, “If the public knows google searches are being monitored, it will limit their intellectual ability.” This means that society will be scared to learn new things via the internet because their findings might be intercepted by the National Security Agency in a different context than what was intended. During the film, Snowden continuously talks to his wife Lindsey who he had to lie to by saying he was going to be away for work for however long was needed. As stories about the NSA went public, Lauren continued to talk to him via messaging. During one of the interviews, Snowden explained she was worried because she was notified the rent was not paid on the house and there were construction trucks on his street every day. If the rent was not paid, Lauren was going to be evicted. Snowden made a comment that the rent was set up to be paid electronically by itself every month, which made him wonder if this was a possible NSA interception. People will now be scared if they see something out of the ordinary. They will hide away instead of living their everyday lives. If they stay away from any interactions, they have nothing to hide.

George Packer, a journalist from The New Yorker, did a profile on Laura Poitras. It follows her through the editing process of Citizenfour. It explains more ways how intellectual capability will be dumbed down. As Laura was editing, she made Packer look away from the footage they were viewing at times to protect an anonymous source. She then had to cut out the footage because it would put the source’s life in jeopardy. The source could have been explaining how to avoid being watched by the NSA, but his wise thoughts had to be cut out. Poitras’ life is based around taking footage, which has got her in trouble with United States Officials. In between 2006 and 2012, she was stopped at airports over 40 times for interrogation and even had her electronic equipment confiscated on one occasion. Her equipment was reutrned, but if it had all of her work on it, it may have never been revealed to the public.  She blames her detainments on one incident in 2004 where she filmed a firefight against American Soldiers in Baghdad and was accused of having foreknowledge of the attack. She was put on a watch list for terrorists that included over 1.2 million Americans, which she did not belong on. Not only was she tracked like every other American, but now she was watched closely almost as if she was being stalked.

Bill Cosby, an American comedian, actor and producer. During his career Bill played a major role in the development of more positive portrayal of African-Americans on television. For example, shows such as The Cosby Show, and Fat Albert gave a broad look into his career. Bill was always referred to as a family man, who would do no harm to another. Unfortunately, this is not a happy ending like most of Bill Cosby’s shows. In fact, allegations of rape surfaced when multiple women spoke out on being drugged, and sexually assaulted.

Though this was not the turnout in the beginning, these stories were brushed off and received very little coverage in mainstream media. At the time, the story lacked credibility or proof. It was only when the accusations began to unfold when multiple women shared similar stories of their time with Bill. According to the three articles posted all ask the same question, why won’t journalists ask Bill the hard questions? Why are we only hearing about this now? In many sexual assault or rape cases, it mostly comes to the authenticity of the testimonies provided by the victims to the contrary of the accused. However, in Cosby’s case, most of the accusations were from years before.

In the past, Cosby faced incidents as a victim of extortion by a former mistress and her daughter. The mistress claimed the daughter is his, however paternity said different. Therefore news organizations and talk shows faced challenges on how to approach this, and eventually turned a blind eye to not claim what can be necessarily true. It is the news media duty to provide a balanced side of facts, and this was not done properly.

Through The Cosby Show, Bill Cosby built up a huge following and influence. He was one of the most popular actors and had an enormous amount of public goodwill. When the allegations of rape first surfaced, it was brushed off and received very little coverage in mainstream media. It was only when the accusations began to multiply in number that it began to receive widespread coverage in the news.

When publishing articles about incidents such as Bill Cosby’, news organizations must strive to stay as objective about the situation as possible. In many sexual assault and rape cases, it comes down to the reliability of the testimonies provided by the victims versus those of the accused.  In Cosby’s case, many of the accusations are from many years ago. The alleged victims’ claims must be viewed in a objective way and balanced with the available facts. News organizations face many challenges in personal cases like Cosby’s. They cannot allow Cosby’s fame to influence and shape the case.  Media coverage has a great amount of influence on how the public views cases and it should not be something that is taken lightly. It is easy to be one sided and provide a single biased perspective, but it is the duty of  news organizations to provide a balanced, unbiased account of the facts.

The media has covered the rape allegations against Bill Cosby very well. Many of the articles are repetitive because the women that are accusing Bill Cosby of rape have very similar stories. The articles also repeatedly state that the statute of limitations is up and Cosby has not been charged with any crimes.
When this story first came out in the media, there was very little evidence. There were dozens of women stepping forward sharing their experiences but their only proof was their word. However, when a deposition from a 2005-2006 case was released there was finally proof. The media and the public finally knew what Bill Cosby had said when accused of sexual assault back in 2005. Mr. Cosby admitted to buying drugs with the intention of giving them to women he wanted have sex with.
The articles I read from the Huffington Post and Fox News covers the stories well. They state the facts while remaining unbiased. New York magazine came out with an article photographing 35 of at the time 46 accusers. This article sides with the women because it depicts them in a powerful way. All 35 of the women are sitting together on the cover and then they are all photographed individually.
One article in the Huffington Post explained Bill Cosby’s situation extremely well. The article stated that Bill Cosby has not made a public statement since the accusations have surfaced. The article then went on to discuss the upcoming deposition this October. The article explained what a deposition is, what will probably happen, and the fifth amendment. According to the article, Bill Cosby is likely to plead the fifth when asked about the rape allegations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-sali/will-we-now-hear-bill-cos_b_7860530.html

There are many conflicts in covering the Bill Cosby story, from the reporters doing the interviews to the news organizations as a whole. One of the issues with the Cosby story is that no media organization wants to take the risk of bringing up the issue of his past that was currently no longer being spoken of. Cosby had many projects in the works and it seems that issue was in the past. The other issue is that as a reporter it’s your job to state the facts and to stay neutral. It was only after a video went viral on social media that the issue took off and it was only then that dozens of women came out to accuse Cosby. The media did recently cover it much better than it did in the past, but there is always room for improvement.

There are many factors that should be reviewed when entering into a discourse about the polarity that exists between the news that media outlets report and the way that they set their agenda. In the case of Bill Cosby and the allegations of sexual assault made against him, there exists a multitude of variables that play into why and how the publicity of the case was staunched. Before examining the coverage of the case it should be noted that Cosby is not the standard, his story is an example of someone who is undeniably against the norm (to a certain extent). The image and reputation he has built over the past years is a part of why the case flew under the radar for so long. It is the same reason why the first sexual assault allegation made against him was ignored.

I believe that when the news first broke in 2005 the story was adequately reported by the news. They presented facts and title conjecture about the events that had happened and they did not report anything that couldn’t be verified. However, the promotion behind the story was, in my opinion, purposefully weak. It wasn’t until recently that there was public outrage over the allegations made against Cosby and some of that outcry was directed at journalists who hadn’t taken the opportunity to question Cosby of any direct wrongdoing.

Cosby’s situation sheds light on one of the flaws within news coverage. There is a conflict of interest between journalism and the stories that are chosen by media outlets to be disseminated. I believe that most journalists would agree that stories based in fact and given fair coverage relative to the importance of the

From a journalistic stand point, I believe that stories should be rooted in facts and coverage should be given to stories relative to their importance in our everyday lives. From the stand point of a media outlet, I would be more interested in pushing a story at the most opportune time with regards to how much money can be made.