http://www.freepress.net/news/print/20748
A story within a story, Sarah Olson an independent journalist and radio producer from California was subpoenaed by the Army prosecutor in the case of the Fort Lewis soldier, Ehren Watada. The prosecutors dropped 2 of the 4 counts on Watada and Olson’s testimony was no longer needed. However, being free from the subpoena did not quiet the uproar from Olson’s supporters’ demands “that a journalist should not be forced to assist the courts in limiting free speech.” Olson received legal assistance from First Amendment Center, the Society of Professional Journalist and many reporters and celebrities. Olson’s case and other similar scenarios have made headlines in independent and alternative media.
Had Olson refused to testify she could have faced 6 months in jail, $500 fine, and a felony charge. I believe journalists are responsible for reporting news to the public without fearing implications from the government. In this case the distinct line between the government and the press has been blurred. Olson states, “It is clear that we must continue to demand that the separation between press and government be strong, and that the press be a platform for all perspectives, regardless of their popularity with the current administration.”
Freedom of speech and free press play a tremendous role in society and our democracy. It is the role of the journalist to report the news as they see it. History has shown that we need our journalists to be able to function as “watch dogs” on government affairs. I believe the prosecutors realized they did not have a case and that the charges against Watada violated his Freedom of Speech. This article made me realize how important the independent journalists are and the amount of attention to important topics that one or two people can bring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thank you for posting this article. This issue of what a reporter should divulge to a jury has come up more than once. Also currently taking place is the Libby trial. This makes me feel the courts don’t have a case against Watada if they have to use an interview with a reporter. An interview that potential never taking place if Watada had chosen to deploy. I think reporters are not responsible for doing the work of investigators and that sharing a source if it means retaliation against the source isn’t necessary.
P.S. you’ve yet another news source to my list.
Great blog. Thank you for brining up this side of the story also. I have been following the Watada case peripherally, but didn't even realize what serious issues were going on behind the curtains.
To me, this paragraph says it all:
"“What could be more hostile to the idea of a free press than a journalist participating in the suppression of newsworthy speech? The idea that you can force a member of the press to suppress free speech is a horror that has nothing to do with whatever my opinions are about the war,” she says. Olson also notes that coverage of war resisters and dissenters will suffer if journalists can be used to prosecute them for their viewpoints. “Who would ever talk to me again?” she asks."
Agreed. How could the media fulfill their watchdog role if they are suppressed in such ways, not to mention, how could the people peacefully and lawfully question authority if there were no ways to gather and discuss ideas or problems? On my opinion, one of the major roles of the media is to bring us together and bring up issues for discussion. That is exactly what this journalist did and she should never be questioned about that right.
Post a Comment