Sunshine Week

In a White House press conference, “reporter” James Gannon asks President Bush how he deals with “[people] who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.” Mr. Gannon poses the question, of course, in reference to Democratic legislators in Congress. Unfortunately, Mr. Gannon is not who he claims to be. He is actually James Guckert—a “web journalist” supported directly by the GOP. How could someone like this gain such close access to the President under a pseudonym? Why did it take so long for a red light to go off? And will American journalists ever find out the truth?

This March, journalists and other media outlets are attempting to shed light on their recent struggles with the government by hosting “Sunshine Week.” Around the country, media outlets seek to raise awareness of just how closed our government has become in the wake of the horrific September 11 terrorist attacks. It is an elaboration on “Sunshine Sunday”—a program started in Florida in 2002 that has successfully overturned about 300 exemptions to open government policies. “Sunshine Week” is the first nationwide effort of its kind.

Today, it is difficult for professional journalists to access information about the government. Legislation is being passed and precedents are being set that infringe on a reporter’s rights to information. Fortunately, there is an outcry from both sides of the aisle—Republican and Democrat—to change these new policies.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that Congress is prohibited from passing laws that infringe on the freedoms of speech and the press. This right is included in the U.S .Constitution thanks to the beliefs of many British and early American philosophers and writers. They used Britain as a glaring example of what not to do. Two British philosophers, using the pseudonym “Cato” in essays published in the early 1700s, explained that those who suppress free speech usually have something to hide. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001 a large group of Americans have accused the Bush administration of such practices. The administration usually responds by dismissing them and linking the lack of information to the perpetual threat of terrorist attacks. This stance may be justified to an extent—but how can you tell if it has gone too far?

Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio Television News Directors Association wrote a column arguing that Americans need access to more government information. She asserts that rather than fixing the problem in general the US government shuts reporters out and actually punishes them for publishing what some consider sensitive information.

At the turn of the 19^th Century the American lawyer Tunis Wortman sought to end the argument over what free speech and self-government meant. He wrote an essay that outlines how Ms. Cochran feels today. Wortman believed that all government derives its power from the people. He said that a government that suppresses media and information no longer serves its people, but rather serves itself. This is what Ms. Cochran and many journalists are afraid of. They believe that the government needs to be constantly examined and needs to be open and honest with those it is designed to serve.

I am writing this piece not only as a student of journalism but as a sergeant in the United States Army. I am playing both sides of the fence in a way. Through my travels and my experiences—including a tour in Iraq—I can legitimately see both sides of the story. Some government secrets are necessary, but there are many things that the public probably should not know for their own good. Unfortunately closed government can be a slippery slope. Once a government is paranoid it will stop serving its citizens. A great example of this would be the Soviet Union. In the1960s, at the height of the Cold War, President John Kennedy stood toe to toe with Nikita Khrushchev. Many feel we were on the brink of nuclear war. During this turbulent time the US Ambassador to the Soviets, George Kennan, anonymously published an article outlining why the Soviets lived in such a closed society. This “X” article (“The Sources of Soviet Conduct”) said that they were “paranoid and xenophobic” after all the invasions and wars that marred their history. The government was secretive and suppressed its people out of fear. Other nations still do this today. Last year, for example, a Canadian journalist named Zahra Kazemi died in prison after the Iranian government found her with photographs of a facility they told her not to take. Under Iranian law there is a freedom of the press outlined in the Constitution—but it can be superceded at any time by the Ayatollah if he perceives a threat. Could the United States be heading down the same path?

I will not question the motives of our leaders but I will propose this analogy. Today, the US Government seems like the paranoid soccer-mom of 2002. She sees the stories of kidnappings on TV. She reads newspapers about sex offenders and follows the analysis of the Elizabeth Smart case. Now she takes every step to protect her son. She decides to home -school him, she removes him from sports programs, she is skeptical of his friends and their families. She gives him a cell phone, a pager, and tells him never to talk to strangers. She perceives a threat and shuts herself and her family down. This may protect her son temporarily, but this is no way to raise a child. Similarly, this paranoia is no way to foster an intellectual society, where people should be reared to be self-sufficient.

Hopefully “Sunshine Week” can show our paranoid parent—the government—that being open to the media is not so bad. It is really the only way that we as a nation can heal and grow in the wake of September 11th.