Zimpapers Logo

Edward Snowden

Nick Mangwana View From The Diaspora

So the argument out there is that the State cannot have it both ways. The media has always been a double-edged sword for anyone but pleaks turn consumers of information into cynics.

It was Edgar Watson Howe who said; “A man who can keep a secret may be wise. But he is not as wise as the man with no secrets to keep.”

This is because secrets make people and organisations vulnerable. Having said that, still every State has its list of things it expects its employees and officers to keep. There are many ways of doing this. Most countries have the “Official Secrets Act” to protect their secrets or some other equivalent legislation which everyone in its employee has to sign to.

If it’s non-state organisations like companies or political parties, they make people sign some sort of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) or some other forms of confidentiality agreements.

Thus organisations have information that they try hard to hide from the public. That is why they have closed door meetings. The media also takes pride in out-scooping each other by getting this information. Problems start when they either start paying for this information or make up things by connecting unrelated dots.

Recently in Zimbabwe, there has been a big debate about so-called leaks. Some are definitely just lies so the focus should be on why they have been told in the first place rather than their non-existent veracity?

By their very nature, leaks undermine organisations. But because normally the organisation is much bigger and more powerful than the individual that discloses its secrets, public opinion normally sympathises with the underdog who in this case is the leaker and the organisation is portrayed as a bully.

Only in very few matters does this sympathy shift from the underdog to the organisation. A lot of people agree that no matter how juicy the leak is, people have to live with the fact that leaks have a deleterious effect especially because they are given without context and therefore distort the intents and purpose.

States have to balance the right of the public to have information and its own right to have secrets. In the United States there have been two very high profile cases which dramatically changed the lives of not only the leakers but the victims of the disclosures as well.

First it was Bradley Mannings (now known as Chelsea Mannings) who triggered the Wikileaks disclosures with such seismic effects.

She is now serving a very long prison sentence. This is in a country that prides itself as the beacon of transparency, media independence and freedom of expression. But then it probably still is the country with the most secrets to keep.

Second the US had to contend with one Edward Snowden. This gentleman was a computer expert who worked on projects for the National Security Agency (NSA). He then disclosed its secrets to the mainstream media. It was an act that also changed his whole life. He only avoided imprisonment for treason by running away to Russia where he is now making $10 000 a time to speak to an audience.

The strange thing about these two individuals is that they considered themselves patriotic because what they disclosed were evidence of State malfeasance. They saw themselves as whistleblowers. But the safeguards protecting whistle-blowers have not been able to protect them and they have now been labelled traitors.

These controversial individuals divide opinion. Normally what then sways public opinion in these kind of situation is the issue of motive. What informed the decision to disclose unauthorised information? Was it financial gain, political expedience or the public interest? The first two might find a hostile audience and sometimes even a hostile media which would refuse to touch the stories. It is the last one which would normally excite the media and public.

Every state wants to control the dissemination of information to the public. Every journalist wants to access that information the State is trying to keep from the public. In Zimbabwe, like in most democratic countries there is a process for requesting for information that has not been voluntarily disclosed by the state; that is through AIPPA (Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act). Of course the whole Act has got notoriety for stifling media freedom in a draconian way. But a close reading of it will show that contrary to all demonisation parts of AIPPA do what the Act is meant to do. Part II of it provides access to information. It gives the media a right to ask for records held by public bodies.

This is not any different from the Freedom of Information (FOI) in the UK. Both these statutory provisions provide alternatives to the leaks of information which is not classified.

There is a possibility that requests have been issued and not complied with but if the media has not tried to assert that right through the courts then there no reason to just go for leaking.

No organisation should countenance any unauthorised disclosure of information. Those that believe that this is draconian often change their minds when the boot is on the other foot. Just leak their embarrassing medical records or children’s records and see. Everyone wants to live in an orderly society. The public has a right to be informed, especially when it is paying the officers and public officials and the information held technically belongs to it. But unstrained leaks breed anarchy.

In a six-month period the United States experienced 147 unauthorised disclosures of intelligence matters. This led to it embarking on a very aggressive prosecution of any leakers of information. Anyone suspected of leaking or discussing what the government has discussed outside that group is subject to a very intrusive scrutiny which includes checking emails, telephones and as well as lie detector tests.

They even have what they call an “Insider Threat Programme”. In pursuit of leakers, reporters have had their telephone records subpoenaed. This is in spite of the presence of the First Amendment Constitutional Protection.

Sometimes the State also abuses the media by manipulating public opinion through what has been termed “pleaks” (planted leaks) by one Edward Pozen. These are quasi-authorised leaks planted in the public arena through media contacts being given some of off-the-record hints to gauge public responses as well as to send signals or warnings to other organisations or simply to prepare the public for a more sensitive announcement.

So the argument out there is that the State cannot have it both ways. The media has always been a double-edged sword for anyone but pleaks turn consumers of information into cynics. They will accept the negative news about an organisation and be cynical about a positive spin.

So let’s face it, organisations leak. A good journalist is one that has sources in organisations who can leak bits of information or drop hints of leads and the journalist does the rest.

In fact, someone even said that governments are the only vessels that leak from the top. The media can publish news with some inaccuracies; this is probably generally acceptable. But to publish complete fabrication and expect to be left alone is to expect the media to live by a different set of rules to those that the rest of society live by.

For everyone to be in a win-win situation most journalists do practice self-censorship in a responsible way.

The problem with practising journalism these days is the competition faced from bloggers and micro-bloggers for breaking stories. This has led some of them to do things that defy human dignity such as the contentious issue of people publishing photographs of a dead body lying in state in a coffin or those gruesomely mutilated bodies of accident or bomb victims which clearly identifies who these people are thus distressing family members.

So the issue of responsibility comes in again. So journalists can enjoy their craft in a responsible way, and organisation can do their information placement to manage (manipulate) public opinion and everyone wins.

Governments shouldn’t be too closed to fail to provide the public with information, this results in complications. There shouldn’t be too big a disconnect between what the public needs to know and what they want to know. Leaks are a market which stands in the gap between the two. The beast has to be fed. It is better to set the narrative than to be on the defensive. A leak is only feeding a craving. It is better to manage the craving by making the menu and dish it in your own way in your special plates. But in all this everyone should never forget that leaks sink ships.

In these days when there is a debate on whether criminal defamation should be off the statutes, there is a cause to say that those journalists who practise their craft responsibly should not be too worried about being prosecuted as they will verify information before publishing.

It is thieves that should worry when the punishment for shop-lifting is increased. When everyone else is being responsible why should the Press be exempted from practising their own art with responsibility?

People are all talk about being liberal and progressive until proper falsehoods are published about them. It is then that they will agree with the professor that said “the constitution does not protect falsehoods based on invented or non-existent sources”.