AP phone records

Rachel Huber

On May 10th the Associated Press was notified in a one-sentence letter by the Department of Justice that they had secretly collected two months of telephone records from Associated Press reporters and editors. Included in the seizure were the records of five reporters’ cell phones, three home phones, two fax lines and 21 phone lines in five AP offices.

President Obama, though initially unaware of the actions made by the DoJ, has painted himself in an unflattering light through his responses to the scandal. When asked about the incident shortly after it had been made public, Obama sounded like a man on trial and refused to comment on the pending case. Instead he spoke broadly about the need to keep military service members safe, and he made it clear that he fully supported Attorney General Eric Holder.

But on Thursday, in response to criticism, Obama said that Holder had agreed to review the department’s “guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters.” But to many, this is far from enough. Asking the Department of Justice to consider whether they overstepped their boundaries is like asking a bully to consider if they have think they have gone too far. It seems unlikely the DoJ’s review of themselves will change much.

However, it does seem that Obama is starting to understand the complexity of the problem. In his speech Thursday, Obama said that there must be consequences for those who fail to protect classified information, but added that “a free press is also essential for our democracy” and that he’s troubled by the possibility that this investigation may have created a chilling effect in journalism.

While it can be debated whether or not it was constitutional for the DoJ to act as they did, it is an undebatable truth that investigations like this do create a chilling effect, where sources are less likely to speak with reporters. When this happens, it is not just a problems for journalists, but for American society as a whole. When the government pursues journalists because of their sources, and in turn makes it harder for journalists to find people willing to speak with them, it keeps Americans from having access to the information they need. Democracy depends on informed citizens. And while Obama seems to realize that, his actions have done next to nothing to stop it.

Fortunately, there are things being done outside of the White House to protect the press. A bipartisan group of House members is currently pushing for a media shield law that would only allow a federal entity to obtain information from a journalist under certain conditions, such as preventing an act of terrorism.

While legislation like this still has the potential to be manipulated by the federal government to obtain information from journalists, the fact that the bill is being proposed reflects the push by Americans to create a safer environment for reporters.

This is why the future of journalism is something to be cautiously optimistic about. This may seem counter-intuitive, especially in light of the fact that last year a Gallup poll showed that a record breaking 60% of Americans have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. But it is that distrust in the media that is causing people to demand change.

That is why the thousands of negative comments on online news articles that question the transparency of government and the thoroughness of the reporting are a good thing. At times this negativity can be harmful, and create a polarizing and distrustful political climate. But when the government is rifling through phone records of journalists, it is a relief that we have the ever-distrustful public defending the press, and defending their right to report information.

We cannot rely on the Obama administration and the Department of Justice to self-regulate. It is the public’s defense of a free press that keeps our democracy running, and it is the reason our country is great.