NSA revelations: Australian editors back the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/nsa-revelations-australian-editors-back-the-guardian

Version 0 of 1.

Garry Linnell, director, Fairfax Media:

In a world awash with information, where facts are constantly and easily hijacked and distorted by opinion, scrutiny of governments and their taxpayer-funded instruments becomes more important than ever. To pass off the Guardian’s reporting of the NSA as helping “Britain’s enemies” is, at first glance, comical and would usually be consigned to the closest dustbin. But at a deeper level it hints at a profound and alarming complacency about the roles of media and government. Hell, let’s not ask questions at all. Let’s not scrutinise those with the power and ability to carry out widespread surveillance on their own citizens. Let’s keep the public in the dark, rather than serving their right to know. And when the state acts unlawfully, let us look the other way. Then we will truly have the society our enemies wish upon us.

Darren Goodsir, editor-in-chief, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun-Herald:

It beggars belief that a major news publisher should so willingly condemn the underlying principles of freedom of speech – and the need to hold those in power accountable through the publication of material that is in the public interest. The Heralds are rivals of the Guardian, but regardless of these competitive realities, we share a common trait in vigorously upholding the need for fair, balanced and fearless independent reporting. Our own newspaper archives are littered with recent examples of how powerful politicians, agencies and individuals have acted against the public interest … almost always claiming at the time they were doing the right thing. No doubt, the test to determine what is in the public interest is a burdensome and serious responsibility for editors – and often has huge ramifications. But the debate should always be viewed with a bias towards exposing the truth, and giving our audience and communities as much information as possible.

Andrew Holden, editor-in-chief, the Age:

The Age, always an advocate of the public’s right to know, condemns the attacks on the Guardian on the pretence that it has aided enemies of the state by publishing Edward Snowden’s revelations. We have also revealed accounts by Snowden of interceptions of international calls and emails from Australia to Europe and Asia. Such revelations are demonstrably in the public interest. Casting a light into the dark corners of power causes discomfort among governments, bureaucracies and agencies with something to hide. But the knowledge of what our governments do to the public is essential for a democracy. The media must strive to publish responsibly, but never neglect its responsibility to publish.

Andrew Jaspan, editor, the Conversation:

The Guardian’s reporting of the Edward Snowden/NSA security files serves the public interest in that we are now better informed on the scale of government intelligence gathering. At the very least we now all know what we didn't know (though suspected), and what the US government never wanted us to know. Secrecy dressed up as national security has always been the card played by the powerful to keep the rest of us in the dark. Citizens have a right to know what their government is up to. And what the Guardian did is the proper role of the Fourth Estate. Those who attack that role have an altogether different agenda, and that too should be the subject of legitimate public questioning and exposure.

Jason Whittaker, editor, Crikey:

You would call the NSA revelations brave and brilliant journalism if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious. Just like you would call the response by the Daily Mail simply sour grapes if it wasn’t the antitheses of what journalism is about. Every publication genuinely committed to the principles of a free press – transparency, accountability, giving the public information it absolutely has a right to know – would have published this material. We can only be jealous. The media must always weigh freedom of information with the consequences of publication. There seems little doubt the appropriate consideration was applied in this case. The result is clear: a public that is almost certainly no less safe but almost certainly much more informed about an issue that is likely to be a defining one of our generation.

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.