The world today faces a dilemma of the gravest kind. A serious deliberation as to where journalists should draw the line has become an issue of significance within and outside the world of media. The keyword here is judiciousness. How much should be published? How much can be concealed? What are the yardsticks of national security and freedom of information?

A free press, it is acknowledged, is the cornerstone of a successful and genuine democracy. The media should necessarily be independent of governmental regulations so as to function autonomously to facilitate serving, in its entirety, the purpose of creating awareness and enlightening the populace. But due to the presence of globally linked terrorist outfits that are constantly on the look out for opportunities to target countries they deem enemies, along with other intricacies in the complex world of international affairs, the need to prioritize national security has never been greater. Needless to say, the increasingly cutthroat world that we live in today makes it imperative to guard national proceedings and records which, upon exposure, may lead to other nations easily obtaining the upper hand, thereby strategically benefiting them. But to treat these as reasons for effectively curbing the rights of the media to pick and choose what it should publish or air, speaks of monocracy. Hardly can journalists ignore newsworthy information that they deem as serving a legitimate public interest. But that information the government might deem secret, and there lies the tight spot. Whether the masses are served in any way by publication of a story that governments would otherwise want to bury, citing national security as a ploy, is an important consideration for editors.

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither” – Benjamin Franklin.

But the question is not about sacrificing one for the other. It is about coexistence. Balance, it is understood, is the key. While the media should exercise self-restraint and self-regulation to ensure that national security and freedom of information are given equal weight when deciding on publishing a story, the role of the media should not be overexerted. Let us not forget that the journalists are as good as their sources. If the government is able to rein in wanton leakages by officials, they would do well. Journalists follow their code of ethics when they keep under wraps the name of the source to protect his/her identity but publish what the source reveals in greater public interest. But random leaks by officials, if stopped, can lead to alleviation of the situation. For example, The New York Times’ choice to run an article revealing the plan devised by the National Security Agency to tap phone and email conversations of al-Qaeda in 2005 is often referred to in debates over national security versus freedom of information. The ‘Plame Affair’, which involved revelations that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA official – up till then, classified information, was another instance of a leak by a bureaucrat. After all, the media has no business having in their possession information if they are not publishing it at all. Journalism is for masses, not journalists – it is only by them. However, the print media should not overdo things, thereby letting out potential information that do more to help terrorists than common people.

In many cases, national security is compromised, or so the authorities say, by coverage of certain issues that do not depend on any sources – so the role of whistleblowers does not come into play. A case in point is the live coverage by the Indian television media of the 26/11 rescue operations. Quite a din was caused then, entreating a review of the media’s role, previously thought to be constructive no matter what. There was widespread criticism of the media’s coverage, wherein meticulous details of the hideouts of hostages, the number of people held in the hotel rooms seized by terrorists, etc, were broadcasted indiscriminately. Indian ministers later went on to criticize the media for its behavior, maintaining that terrorists sitting in Pakistan were watching the live TV feeds that could potentially help them grasp the enemy’s (that is, the Indian National Security Guards’) position. Authorities had even mulled over regulations on media coverage, although journalists rued that there were no alternative devices to steer clear of fears such as the ones raised by the ministers. The balance in this case could have been achieved by concealing or censoring critical information, like the exact positions of the Indian rescuers or the hostages, instead of unrestrained live-beaming of all that was unfolding at a dreaded terrorist attack site where there was literally a gun battle going on. An encounter between the perilous gun-totting, trigger-happy terrorists and the Indian rescue security forces, after all, should not have been a dose of television drama for the billion people in India and beyond. It was strategically, morally and physically too bad a giveaway. It is to be noted, however – paradoxically or not – that it was a TV channel’s investigative story before the 26/11 attacks on how India’s coastal security was bleak, that was later picked out by many as a 30-minute show that the authorities would have done well to see and work from. Few would also say that it was this security loophole that the media highlighted for the Pakistani terrorists to take note and later cash in on to penetrate the Indian borders to carry out the horrifying assault.

Media is the easy target for blameworthiness, so is it an easy hero. However, it is still a matter of debate as to how equilibrium might be attained. In the historic Kargil war between Indian and Pakistan in 1999, journalist Barkha Dutt’s brave coverage for NDTV was seen in a bad light as much as she was honored for her courageous reporting. The Indian Army then, it is said, complained to the channel that critical positions of the armed forces battalion were given away in broadcasts leading to causalities. National security was believed to have been perilously encroached upon by the broadcast media. But, at the same time, the role of the press in letting people know of wars and providing them with immediate news from ground zero, cannot be scaled back. Neither can repressive measures against journalists be of any help unless the nation is ready to meet head-on accusations of being tyrannical.

When whistleblower website wikileaks.com revealed classified documents (i.e., files pertaining to the Afghanistan war), several dubious records came up. People were enlightened of America’s lies, the ineffectiveness of the warfare, human right violations, etc. Masses also got to know of Pakistan’s duplicity, even as the role of Inter-Services Intelligence in global terrorism came under the spotlight. Exposure of such important information acted as an eye-opener and people knew straight away that they had been kept in dark. But the power corridors harbored other fears. American authorities, including the White House, condemned Julian Assange’s act of driving the skeletons out of the cupboard and harped on how America’s strategic interests were heavily compromised and NATO troops’ lives threatened. But videos released also showed how brutally some members of the US Army celebrated the death of a dozen Iraqi civilians after an air strike. A soldier – or the source that tipped Assange off – was charged; not for the hideous international human right violations, but for having let out information that US authorities would have liked to keep hidden from the American public.

An active media therefore is critically important for a surviving democracy – in fact, democracy survives on media. After all, the media’s presence does not entail playing the role of spokesperson or mouthpiece for the government. Often what the government wants its people to know is inadequate and illusory and the media should discard suggestions of reporting half-truths. Bitter facts should indeed be laid bare by the press, but not at the cost of national security. However, the latter should not be conveniently used as a slogan to cover essential information that is worth everybody’s attention. Culprits in the office, loopholes in the system, discrimination and nepotism, corruption in the high command and elsewhere – all of these need to be reported amply, the timely usage of words like ‘national security’ only to prevent right but prickly coverage notwithstanding.

But the press treatment of issues needs a sensible approach. When that is lacking, media can be harmful. For example, when cooperation of other countries are useful in counterterrorism, ‘issues of rendition’ being leaked in the press may lead to other nations shying away from cooperation, as articulated by Daniel Benjamin, the coordinator for counterterrorism at the US Department of State. But when indications are that the government might be engaging in illegitimate activities, the flow of information should receive precedence right away. However, checking and ironing out with authorities before running something that potentially deals with – or may even compromise – national security issues, should be considered by journalists. The banner of national security and governmental confidentiality should not be used to weigh down the smooth running of the fourth estate, though. Since, it’s the media that responsibly exposed the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib, the cruelty in Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the massacre at Haditha, etc, it should be encouraged to dig deeper. If national security is now being dwelt upon and impediment of press wished for, it is time to recall the momentous Watergate investigative story. One way or another, even Watergate was an end result of nonstop flirting with state safety by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. And we know what Watergate stands for.

As per rules, journalists can be put on trial for publishing classified information unabashedly but the press’ role in fetching justice and making headway in the direction of justice is spot on. However, in a bid to seek justice, sometimes the media aids the enemy by putting important information in the public domain which becomes an instant subject of unfettered conversation.

At the end of the day, as in the words of former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian, “There is no absolute contradiction and confrontation between national security and press freedom”. It is indeed true that while national security is vital, as it protects the citizens, press liberty is equally important - as it informs, warns, tells, enlightens, addresses, and contributes to the general consciousness of the public whom the government more often that not likes to keep in the dark, uninformed and in stupor. But the press is their savior – continuously keeping them abreast of the latest developments in the sheltered world of policy and authority. But a narrowed-down notion of ‘national security’ and an airtight definition of ‘governmental secrets’ might just be the answers to most of the quandaries. And the expansion of the theory of coexistence shall supplement.

Abhirup Bhunia (India) is a freelance journalist whose reports on various issues have been published at United Press International. Also sub-editor at an Indian youth news website, his opinion pieces have found place in news and opinion portals.