Journalism and national security in the post-truth era

This is an important collection of essays on a topic of fundamental importance to the future of public knowledge – the ability of journalists to report on issues that the state deems to be secret. Yet, in the ‘post-truth’ Trumpian era, how easy is it to identify a journalist? How do you identify a legitimate source? Can journalists work with state actors to protect genuine secrets, while still holding power to account? Is that possible to do without being accused of being part of the much mentioned, never revealed ‘deep state’?

With chapters on the prosecution of Julian Assange (pictured), the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the propaganda of ISIS, there is considerable focus on the opportunities for and consequences of digital disclosures – the ‘information wars’ of the title. Particularly interesting is the discussion of how access to state sources – beyond whistle-blowers – can be negotiated. On one hand, the greater the access that a journalist has to decision-makers and their gatekeepers, the more likely it is that they will (either voluntarily or by virtue of law) be required to censor their reporting. On the other, if there is to be a presumption of access to information, some external intermediary – a role provided by the courts among others – will need to take the view that transparency outweighs national security, a position often (by no means always) anathema to such institutions.

Should there be a presumption in favour of publication? Marc Ambinder’s chapter calls for journalists to act (at times) with restraint rather than rush in. Taking the first year of president Trump’s tenure, particularly the stories around Russian state interference, along with the impact of the WikiLeaks release of US diplomatic cables (2010), the argument is made that leaks are often reported with a breathlessness that belies their content. The sheer volume of information (in the case of the cables) or the ‘tribalism’ of reporting (in respect of Trump/Russia) means it can be hard for the public to understand what, if anything, is being alleged.

‘Effective national security journalism,’ Ambinder says, ‘requires a bond of trust between the reader and the reporter’ (page 82). The balancing act between national security and transparency should be approached in better faith by governments, with journalists explicitly acknowledging compromises in reporting and as part of the provision of access, furthering the pact of trust with readers. Speed, he concludes, is not always the answer.

Tom Proverbs-Garbett is a consultant