Under what circumstances should The New York Times’ editor publish WikiLeaks under virtue ethics?

Rene M. Schwartz

Dec. 1, 2017

Abstract

A virtue ethicist is most interested in how acts or consequences affect her own character; the more developed her character is, the better moral decisions she will make in the future. The emphasis on character development and the role of emotions makes virtue ethics in journalism superior to other ethical positions, such as deontology and teleology. To prove this theory, the researcher asked under what circumstances should The New York Times’ editor publish documents obtained by WikiLeaks. The researcher’s method consisted of looking at three criteria: 1) Were the names redacted? 2) Did the newsworthiness of the documents outweigh the potential less-than-legal means by which they were obtained? And 3) Was the golden mean employed when determining what to release and what not to? The researcher discovered that in this case, the editor was justified in publishing the documents obtained by Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks.

Keywords: Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, The New York Times, virtue ethics, War Logs, Pentagon Papers

Introduction

In 2010, intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning (who was then Bradley Manning) turned over thousands of secret military documents to an organization called WikiLeaks, founded and run by Julian Assange. WikiLeaks is an international organization that obtains secret and classified information anonymously and publishes the documents for the public to read. These documents, since they are obtained anonymously, cannot always be verified. Manning’s leaked files became known as the War Logs. Working with the editors of The New York Times, The Guardian and German publication Der Spiegel, Assange assisted in disseminating some of that information through the newspapers’ mainstream channels.

In the case of Chelsea Manning leaking secret documents to WikiLeaks, what should The New York Times' editor have done? There is controversy about whether Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and other supporters of WikiLeaks are heroes or traitors or both. Should that matter when talking about getting the news to the American people? In this case study, I argue that printing the leaked information was the right decision. The editor published the information under specific circumstances that are used to protect people, the newspaper itself, the art of journalism and, most importantly, the self-growth of the editor.

Thesis

The emphasis on character development and the role of emotions makes virtue ethics in journalism superior to other ethical positions, such as deontology and teleology. A virtue ethicist is more interested in how the act or consequence affects her own character. Because of this, the virtue ethicist would argue that the more developed a person's character is, the better moral decisions she will make in the future. The New York Times' editor has and would continue publishing information sent to WikiLeaks for three reasons: the editor redacted names of people who could be harmed from being published; "there is a long tradition in journalism that we ought to publish material of compelling interest even if that information was obtained through dubious means … if we can verify the credibility of it, we ought to publish it" (Smith, M. A., Sept. 20, 2017), and; the editor read through all of the documents and made publishing decisions based on the golden mean.

Background

According to its website, WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange. Assange has also been referred to as the WikiLeaks spokesperson and its editor-in-chief. Since its founding, WikiLeaks has won some impressive journalism awards and has been nominated six consecutive years, starting in 2010, for the Nobel Peace Prize, though the organization has never won (Assange, J., n.d.).

Assange, WikiLeaks' founder, takes the position that he is strongly against government and corporate authoritarian forces and influences, especially when they are secretive and keeping classified information from the people. In this, he shares medieval philosopher Peter Abelard's views, as Assange's actions demonstrate his belief in challenging authority to improve society, not for self-interest (Bobbitt, R. 2009).

Assange has not had the easiest time pursuing this venture. Since June 19, 2012, Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He was granted political asylum, but risks extradition to the United States where he fears he will be imprisoned and charged with espionage or conspiracy to obtain governmental secret documents. Assange believes this is not paranoia. Assange and his supporters, including Frank La Rue, the United Nations representative for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, believe that the United States is going to unfairly prosecute him for exercising his freedom of speech, and deny him legal protections as a publisher (Hall, E., 2010). But does the United States government have a case?

Given America's legal safeguards for publishers, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that if U.S. prosecutors try to charge Assange under the Espionage Act, a vaguely worded World War I-era law, they would have a difficult challenge (Perez, E, et al, 2017). The act would require the government to prove that Assange intended to harm the U.S. government or aid a foreign power (Espionage Act, 1917). Charles Stimson, a former federal prosecutor, pointed out it would be difficult to predict how the U.S. government would pursue its case (Agence France Presse, n.d.).

The Case for Chelsea Manning

In 2010, an intelligence analyst for the U.S. military, Chelsea Manning, released a trove of material to Assange and WikiLeaks anonymously, but told a confidant, who ended up turning her in. This information is known as the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs. The War Logs included the well-known video of a U.S. Apache helicopter opening fire on a group of suspected insurgents in Baghdad that turned out to include two Reuters journalists.

Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison after being charged with violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. President Obama commuted her sentence after seven years concluding that the time she had already spent in federal custody was enough for her crimes.

Assange believes it's unfortunate that he, a self-described computer programmer, has released more classified documents and information in his short time with WikiLeaks than the rest of the world's media combined (Anderson C., n.d.). But should the media, or in the case of this case study, The New York Times' editor, pass on publishing the information because it was obtained by questionable means by whistleblowers and unnamed sources?

Method

The best philosophic lesson Aristotle taught us was about the golden mean. The golden mean is used to find moderate solutions between two extremes. A virtuous person should be drawn to the midpoint naturally (Bobbitt, R, 2011, p. 21). In the following section, the researcher aims to prove that The New York Times’ editor used the golden mean in deciding three criteria for publishing WikiLeaks in the newspaper. Although Aristotle didn't intend for a virtue ethicist to figure out what the extremes were before finding the midpoint, I think it will help in these cases to show those extremes.

The method consisted of looking at the issue and identifying the three criteria it would take for The New York Times’ editor to be justified in publishing WikiLeaks excerpts in the newspaper. The first criterion was ensuring that names were redacted from the original documents, so to protect any innocents who may emerge. The second criterion the researcher considered was whether the public's need to know justifies the use of the less-than-legal means in which the information was obtained. Lastly, the third criterion was making sure the golden mean was employed when deciding if The New York Times’ readers were getting the most out of the information from WikiLeaks.

The researcher established the criterion of redacting a name because, especially in the case of sensitive documents, identifying individuals could potentially put their lives at risk. For example, in the case of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent, a syndicated columnist identified her by name, putting both her job and her life in danger. This information was reiterated in both broadcast and print media, including The New York Times. The public outcry which ensued, encouraged them to become more circumspect in the future when identifying individuals by name without regard for consequences (Ballard, T.N. & Dumouchelle, K., 2005).

In an article from The New York Times (A. Gibney, 2016), Gibney says that in the case of the War Logs, The New York Times’ editor, as well as the editors of The Guardian and Der Spiegel, decided that before they would publish the WikiLeaks material from Manning that they absolutely were going to redact the names. Assange disagreed with this, as is evident on the WikiLeaks website where he leaves all the names for the world to see. The researcher argues for a virtue ethicist, learning from mistakes is paramount to the philosophy. After the backlash of public opinion regarding the Plame affair, The New York Times' editor learned the lesson to redact sensitive names and has since been more careful, as is evidenced in the publishing of WikiLeaks.

Specifically, virtue ethics with regard to redacting names seems obvious. Using the golden mean, the midpoint between publishing the names and putting their lives at risk, or not publishing the story at all, the center of the two extremes is to black out the names or change them to fictional names, which means the readers get the valuable information and the people who could be harmed were protected. That is what makes a good editor and is what The New York Times' editor ultimately decided to do in order to maintain his ethical integrity when publishing this document.

The researcher established the criterion of the public’s right to know and whether that right supersedes the methods used to obtain the information. This is an issue editors have struggled with throughout the history of news reporting. The public’s right to know was central to the decision by The New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers were a study on Vietnam relations which revealed secrets that the U.S. government was keeping from Americans. In this case, Daniel Ellsberg, a person who had worked on the study and then leaked it to The New York Times, was charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property (Pentagon Papers, 2017). But, his case pretty much petered out before the trial and he ended up getting all of the charges dropped. The New York Times stood by its decision to publish the Pentagon Papers which Stanley Karnow (1983) and other historians believe helped to shorten the war in Vietnam.

In the case of publishing WikiLeaks documents, The New York Times' editor had to consider whether the information was newsworthy and the editor had to decide if the newsworthiness trumped the inability to name a source (which turned out to be Manning). Ultimately, the editor decided it was fit to print and the result was that the public had mainstream access to secrets that the government was intending to keeping from them. This may not always be the right decision, such as if the information were putting the country or any of its citizens at risk. Just like with the redacting, the golden mean was used to find the midpoint between whether the editor should blindly publish all of the dubious WikiLeaks documents or if he or she should publish none of them because they were obtained by shady means. The midpoint of the two extremes was that the editor found the most important documents with the most compelling interest, investigated the accuracy and published them.

The researcher established the criterion of the golden mean because The New York Times’ editor’s prerogative is to make sure the readers are getting the best information possible in the most ethical way. In the case of 9/11, the news networks — especially live news crews — covering the catastrophe, mostly did not show people falling out of the windows of the buildings to avoid being burned alive or crushed to death. The New York Times was one of the news outlets that was on the scene and they did not show the people falling, but they found a way to report on it anyway; instead, they used the golden mean and talked graphically about the bodies plunging to their deaths, but didn’t actually show anything.

In this case, an example comes from the War Logs. WikiLeaks handed over secret video from Baghdad (Baghdad airstrike, 2017), received from Manning, which, in graphic detail, shows the deaths of innocent civilians and two Reuters journalists and what the American soldiers who killed them said in correspondence with their superiors.

Does The New York Times’ editor publish that video on the newspaper's website? The first extreme would be posting the video in its entirety to the website. The other extreme would be not posting anything to the website. The golden mean for an editor would dictate putting up still images of the video on the newspaper’s website. This way, the editor will be virtuous in that he didn’t show the moment of death of seven men and he didn't keep the newsworthy video from being disseminated to the public on the website.

So, yes, The New York Times reported on the attack, but the editor didn't show the most gruesome aspects, according to a photo accompanying an article in The New York Times on Sept. 12, 2001, which shows a dramatic photo of a woman who was obviously injured in the attack. In this way, by employing the golden mean, the readers got the most important messages which was that it was brutal, but weren't subjected to seeing it happen through their own eyes, which can be traumatic. This is evident from all of the people who survived or witnessed 9/11 and to this day have PTSD (Harticolis, A., 2011).

Possible Flaws

While the researcher believes virtue ethics in journalism is the best philosophy, it does have some possible flaws. The first possible flaw is that it’s hard to define what exactly constitutes a virtue. The second flaw is that the lessons learned can’t be passed down from the predecessor and has to be learned by the individual editors. The next possible flaw is that unlike Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the lessons are not concrete and can’t be used to make rules for other potential scenarios. A fourth possible flaw is that this philosophy doesn’t look at the costs and benefits to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

There are valid criticisms of virtue ethics, as there are with all branches of ethics. Some might say that virtue ethics is concerned with long-term development and doesn’t help as much with immediate specific situations. The first criticism is that “virtue” has many meanings. As fleeting as its definition is, it can also change over time from person to person and from society to society. This isn’t a big issue unless you are looking for a philosophy that is concrete in all situations like Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Categorical Imperative.

While the predecessor can advise the new editors, it’s difficult. It’s mainly up to each new editor to have self-growth. Virtue ethics is really concerned with the development of an individual’s character and making decisions based on which one will make you the best person. This is something that is hard to learn from someone else and is best left up to the individual.

As far as not being the best philosophy for doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, a virtue ethicist is most concerned with self-development. A virtue ethicist believes that the more he makes good decisions, the better he’ll be at making them in the future. While this may overlap with teleology decision-wise, they are not the same.

Impact

In order to come to an informed conclusion, one must understand the concept of the public sphere and its potential impact on The New York Times’ editor’s decision making. The whole point of the public sphere is to get people together as a group to criticize the state with a free exchange of ideas. The concept is that the state cannot ignore public opinion. The media becomes an improved method of disseminating public opinion. Channels of communication allow ideas to spread.

The decline of the public sphere is brought on by a totalitarian state. For this reason, the founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights several precepts protecting the public sphere. These include freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of assembly and redress of government grievances without fear of retribution.

Chelsea Manning was attempting to circumvent the government’s decision to keep secrets from the public sphere, essentially denying the people the ability to make informed decisions.

When an attempt is made to block the flow of information to the people, it can become the job of whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to act as an agent provocateur to ensure that the information gets to the public sphere. In Manning’s case, she leaked it to WikiLeaks and it was republished by The New York Times.

Whistleblowers like Manning are endeavoring to balance the government’s attempt to control the information and through that, the people. There has yet to be a necessity for a movement for full freedom of press and this may, similar to how the middle class shifted in power, cause a shift of power back into the hands of the press as they form a body large and strong enough that the government cannot punish them. In the case of Manning, she was held responsible for leaking the secrets to the press. How easy would it be for the government if more people stood up and started a movement for freedom of the press, to punish the whistleblowers?

Although the public sphere usually means a group of people, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning do not qualify as a group, necessarily. That being said, in order for the public sphere to focus on media ethics, a group needs to be formed in order to criticize and challenge the government, which would require a public opinion to be formed on the topic. This may be proving difficult for the WikiLeaks movement because, "public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed" (Habermas, J., 1974, p. 50).

In this case, Assange is presupposing that the public can reason for itself in that they should be able to have all of the information available on a certain topic and decide what they think about it for themselves. The government, on the other hand, by keeping secrets, assumes that the public cannot, or should not, be privileged to all information, which supposes that they cannot form opinions of their own and cannot, thereby, reason as a public.

The impact of Assange's media activity is that he is drawing attention to the fact the government is deciding what news the public can handle or should or should not have and that the public cannot reason for itself. It will be up to the public to decide whether they agree with the government or want to consume true and holistic news media as to whether they will form a group to criticize the government, thus producing a public sphere of attention in media regulation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the researcher has proved that the theory of The New York Times’ editor employing the three criteria on documents received by perhaps shady means, can result in publishing under good conscience. As long as the editor retracts the names, weighs the newsworthiness against the dubiousness of the receipt of the documents, verifies the accuracy and uses the golden mean to show the readers the pertinent dramatic information in a palatable way, then the editor is virtuous and ethical and should continue to publish documents obtained by whistleblowers.

References

Agence France Presse. (n.d.). Does the US have a case against Julian Assange? Retrieved

September 26, 2017, from http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/1003054/

does_the_us_have_a_case_against_julian_assange

Anderson, C. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2017, from

https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks

Assange, J. (n.d.). What is WikiLeaks. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from

https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html

Ballard, T. N., & Dumouchelle, K. (2005, October 20). Key Players in the Plame Affair.

Retrieved November 29, 2017, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001487.html

Bobbitt, R. (2009). Decisions, decisions: Case studies and discussions in communication ethics.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Dwyer, K. F. (2004, September 10). Falling Bodies, a 9/11 Image Etched in Pain. Retrieved

November 30, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/falling-bodies-a-911-image-etched-in-pain.html

Gibney, A. (2016, August 08). Can We Trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? Retrieved

November 28, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html

Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere. An encyclopedia article. New German Critique, 3, 49-55

Hall, E. (2010, December 08). UN freedom of speech reporter says Assange should not be prosecuted. Retrieved December 01, 2017, from http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/un-freedom-of-speech-reporter-says-assange-should/2370182

Hartocollis, A. (2011, August 09). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder From 9/11 Still Haunts.

Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/nyregion/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-from-911still-haunts.html

Karnow, S. (1983). Vitenam: A History. NY, NY: The Viking Press.

New York Times (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2017, from

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/9-11imagemap.html

Perez, E., Brown, P., Prokupecz, S., & Bradner, E. (2017, April 20). Sources: US prepares

charges against WikiLeaks' Assange. Retrieved December 01, 2017, from www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-us-charges/index.html

Smith, M. A., personal communication, Sept. 20, 2017.

The War Logs. (2010, October 22). Retrieved November 29, 2017, from

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/iraq-war-logs.html