Freedom of Information, Unless We Change Our Mind

In 1966, new legislation was passed that changed part of the operating dynamic between the government, the media, and everyday citizens seeking to know more. This new legislation was the FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act. In its simplest form, it allowed the public, both citizens and the media, to request official government documents. The purpose of the new legislation was to increase transparency in governmental operations, while simultaneously increasing public knowledge with the hope that more informed citizens would benefit the American democratic system. Since the inception of the FOIA, individuals have been requesting thousands of documents, ranging from CIA operations to the recipe for beer brewed in the White House.

Obviously, a functional government cannot disclose all of its information to anyone requesting it at any given time. This should not need much explanation, and anyone who disagrees and thinks that 100% transparency is a viable solution could clearly benefit from a generous dose of reality. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the government should be able to withhold any information, for an unlimited amount of time, for any reason it deems necessary, is one step closer to tyranny. The question that presents itself now is where should the line be drawn? What information is necessary to produce a more informed voting population, and what information is necessary to hold close to the chest for issues of national security? I don't have a concise definition or example for either of these, but I am able to illustrate specific problems when I see them.

In 2009 the Obama administration issued Executive Order 13526, which allowed reclassification of documents AFTER a FOIA request was made. Prior to this order, any request for documentation that was not classified was required to be fulfilled. Now, the government has the ability to deny any FOIA request by simply reclassifying the material requested if it is not convenient for them to release it. For an administration that campaigned on transparency, this does not seem appropriate. Are we to believe that by a simple request that the actual material has somehow increased in sensitivity? If the information was vital to national security, then it should have been properly classified from the beginning. The government has generally erred on the side of over-classification from the start, and I am not able to see why it could become imperative to the security of our nation to reclassify documents after a request is made. To me, this seems to be more of a mechanism put in place to erect road blocks in front of journalists or citizens when they appear to head down a trail that the government does not approve. In other words, freedom of information for as long as you ask irrelevant questions. I disagree with this approach, as I am able to envision much more harm than help; especially from an administration that promised more transparency than ever before.

Different Strokes for Different Folks or Padding the Bottom Line?

While perusing the inter-webs this week, I happened to stumble upon a few discrepancies that directly correlate to the often messy intersection of politics and the mass media. What I found was essentially various covers for TIME magazine next to each other, only with different graphics and story placement in the American market versus the rest of the world. While this may not come as a shock to many others, I had never realized the level of difference in various markets. I was aware that magazines sometimes ran various stories in order to tailor their features to the local markets, but unaware of the tremendous variances within the same magazine per regions.

The September 16, 2013 edition of TIME magazine's cover showed a football player mid stride with a headline that read "It's Time To Pay College Athletes". On the same day, the European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian, and South Pacific versions featured a close up shot of a serious looking (when is he not) Vladimir Putin followed by the words "America's weak and waffling, Russia's rich and resurgent". Needless to say, this serves as a stark contrast to the American print version. You can find the story hidden in a corner of TIME's cover with an altered title, "What Putin Wants" in the US version. No mention of America's weakness, no compliments for Putin. When one looks at the various covers, very different thoughts and feelings come to mind. The rest of the world was given a cover with a feature story of international affairs, while we were given something that might be a legitimate issue on its own, but certainly not at a time when we have such development in the Syrian conflict.
Perhaps American's have no tolerance for politics anymore? Perhaps we value are sports stars more than those who set the rules for our futures? Last time I checked, the Super Bowl got quite a bit more coverage than Presidential addresses. Are we that detached from politics that we can't face cold facts, and we merely turn another cheek?  Maybe the news outlets are simply afraid of casting Putin in a favorable light as a large portion of their paying audience lived through the end of the cold war period?

Regardless of the original reasoning for a vastly different cover, the implications are clear to me. The media is not nearly as concerned about sending out a message and disseminating information as they are about turning a profit. I can only assume TIME thought that they would offend their American audience with the international version and therefor loose sales revenue, and so they chose to relegate real news to the back burner in order to protect profits. I don't necessarily mean to condemn any news outlet for making money, rather, I intend to use this as another example of the media as a corporate enterprise rather than a public servant. If they are able to serve the democracy while turning a profit, then they will certainly oblige. But, when it comes down to it, news outlets will sacrifice their role as protectors of the people and mass educators in order to increase their wealth.