Media and Leaks

No need to review the decision of the Senate Impeachment Court. The law is clear. “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” The conviction of Renato C. Corona is final. News reports the day after the decision said Corona accepts the decision.

This comment then picks up on the notion—referred to Corona who complained that information about his accounts had been leaked to the media, as well as by some commentators and senator judges—that evidence and such information must be properly sourced, that there is something wrong when evidentiary material going public even before its discussion in the court and provided only by properly sworn witnesses. That is to speak only of the value of the information in court.

I think it is appropriate for the lawyers to be discomfited by “leaks” of information to the media and the role of “whistleblowers” who may leak information or simply go public about the wrongdoing that they know—because of legal requirements. Thus, one had said, those violating “confidentiality” must not be seen as “heroes” but as criminals.

This judgment may make sense legally. But the public forum in a democracy should be protected from this wholly legalistic outlook.

Our experience in this country has shown how much wrongdoing is kept hidden from public knowledge by the shroud of secrecy. In the long years of Martial Law when the controlled press observed strictly the official limits to what could be reported has left many still imbued with this great respect for the official prerogative to keep things secret. The cloak of confidentiality which may be necessary for open and honest policy discussion has also been abused when applied to keeping secret “sweetheart deals” which benefit those involved. Thus, many working in the bureaucracy become accomplices of much of the wrong-doing because they have become duty-bound to keep these secret.

But a free and independent press must break down the walls of secrecy in government. Investigative reporters have to deal with “whistleblowing sources” and “leaks.” Serving as the institutional channel for information about wrongdoing and corrupt practice, journalists must sift through the material and decide what should be revealed to the public. As with all ethical reports, the news must be handled with care and regard for the ethical commands for truth, accuracy and independence.

The custom in this country enshrines free talk or gossip as the life that animates its social gatherings and meetings in coffee shops. Such ceaseless exchange on insider information proves that “whistleblowing” is a well-developed activity. We should provide the channels for which information from these sources can be evaluated. One such channel is the news media.

When journalists pick up on such a story and follows through with a report, the information should have been sifted for what can be corroborated and presented as “true.”

And I am sure there will be enough lawyers who will defend the source or the channel should they ever be taken to court.