Can we talk about honor in the media and in the government?

Not really……If you Google “honor in the media”, it is clear there is no such thing. According to a September 2014 Gallup Poll, trust in the mass media has returned to an all-time low.

Trust among Democrats, who have traditionally expressed much higher levels of confidence in the media than Republicans have, dropped to a 14-year low of 54% in 2014. Republicans’ trust in the media is at 27%, one percentage point above their all-time low, while independents held steady at 38% — up one point from 37% in 2013.

Republicans appear to believe the media is too liberal. However, I believe the overall low levels of trust stem from a belief that the media is more interested in a story than they are in reporting the truth. At least that has been my personal experience.

When the State budget was slashed for one of the programs I am responsible for managing; reporters from television, radio and newspapers descended upon me wanting me to say the sky was falling. Since I work within the homeland security enterprise, worst case scenarios of the “tragic” consequences of the funding cut were dramatized when the reality was that overall emergency preparedness was not significantly affected.

But the media is not alone with its lack of honor or attempts at manipulation.

In fact, it is easy to think the media is a pawn of the government that intentionally leaks classified information that threatens national security while taking punitive action against those who expose leaks that present the President in less than favorable light.

The New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane states “the administration manipulates and exploits its secrecy powers by leaking snippets to the media which glorify President Obama while concealing everything else.”

Brisbane goes on to say “The reason that behavior ‘gives the appearance that the government is manipulating’ the media is because that is the reality. If a government employee leaks classified information that exposes wrongdoing on the part of the President or his aides or otherwise embarrasses them, he is prosecuted without mercy; at the same time, the President and his aides constantly leak bits of classified information (which remain classified) in order to benefit the President politically. Thus, when it suits them, they dole out snippets of information about how the Tough, Strong President killed the Bad Guy with brutal efficiency and bravery — and how his lawyers said it was permissible — but all the details necessary to assess the accuracy of those claims and any information which contradicts them remain suppressed, and if anyone exposes them, they face lengthy prison terms.”

Can the United States learn anything from Australia’s relationship between the media and government?

The Australian “D Notice” system was introduced in 1952. “D Notices are communications issued to the media by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee that outline subjects which bear upon defence or national security and request editors to refrain from publishing certain information about those subjects.” The “D” stands for defense in that the D Notice system was designed to protect information relative to defense or national security. Though the system is not in common use today, four D Notices have been in force since 1982. The system is voluntary and there are no penalties for non-compliance but it seems to set a standard whereby the media could be identified as supporting security or not.

The Australian National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (2014) has been described as an extension of the D-Notice system that would subject journalists who reveal details of intelligence operations to criminal penalties. I am not suggesting that we take a similar path and abandon the Constitution and legally abridge the freedom of the press. It will be interesting to see how the Australian National Security Legislation Amendment Bill unfolds. The devil would certainly be in the details when implementing such a system.

However, I do see the merits of assessing the adaptability of the voluntary D System, or a version of it, in possibly identifying an honor system that sets a standard of responsible reporting for the media in favor of protecting national security.

In his 1995 autobiography, former Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee wrote “Editors—and reporters, and especially owners—don’t like to be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, even when they know it not to be true……it results in a great deal of ill-tempered and unnecessary correspondence.”

What is the answer? I suppose D notices, though voluntary, would not be realistic here. It is a slippery slope.

But how can honor be restored so that government is truly about public service and the media just objectively reports the news without jeopardizing national security or patronizing a political party? These are questions that extend into the culture of our society as a whole.