Let me start by saying that I applaud and support all of the work done by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
The recent Panama Paper story illustrates the one point of departure that I have with the ICIJ.
Rather than providing everyone with equal access to the leaked documents, it is my understanding that the ICIJ will continue to limit access to those documents to “investigative journalists.”
I don’t question the role or work done by these “investigative journalists” on this story. They have observed remarkable operational security and produced much fuller account than the bare information would have supported.
Having said that, I have these questions:
- How do I know these journalists found the same story I would read in the original documents?
- How do I know these journalists made the same connections I would make for the people mentioned in the documents?
- How is their reporting “transparent” if I can’t compare both their stories and the original documents?
- How are journalists held “accountable” if the basis for that accountability, the original documents, remain forever secret?
Governments argue that national security, privacy, etc., are always at stake, but the history of leaks in the United States shows all those concerns to be false.
The true concerns true out to be concealment of illegality, incompetence, vanity, and a host of other unsavory motives.
From the Pentagon Papers to the Afghan War Diaries, the sky has never fallen, the Republic has not collapsed, milk has not soured across the land, etc.
I am not suggesting that reporters ever, under any circumstances, be compelled to reveal their sources, but with the Panama Papers there is a document trove with no such implications.
If I am going to inveigh for the government to be transparent in its decision making, on what basis should I hold investigative reporters to a lesser standard?
BTW, the withholding information to protect “privacy” rings just a bit hollow, considering that if anything, it was an invasion of privacy for the journalists to obtain the information. Should have been deleted on receipt if privacy was a concern.