Information and the Role of the Press
Information is an essential component of existence that keeps modern society functioning. It encourages problem-solving approaches as well as people's ability to think about and assess challenges. While information can originate from a variety of sources, the press's primary mission is to disseminate information and keep people informed about what is going on across the world. Nonetheless, there have been instances where press freedom has been restricted due to a variety of factors. For example, numerous regimes have intervened in media matters by making political news coverage impossible, leaving regular individuals in the dark (Rapai, 2011). The safety of journalists has also not been given much emphasis in a good number of countries hence instilling fears among them. As a result, there have been some court cases concerning freedom of press filed by different media platforms. The objective of this paper is to take the United States Department of Justice vs. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press as a landmark case on the issue of press freedom and analyze some matters that took place in the hearings.
Summary of the Case
CBS News correspondent requested the identification records of Charles Medico who was a criminal from the FBI (Jacobs & Larrauri, 2012). The FBI is the single security agency that maintains the criminal identification records of millions of people across the United States and abroad. The records contain descriptive information of the historical data of individuals who have been arrested, charged and sometimes incarcerated. However, the FBI refused the request and RCFP, and the CBS news reporter challenged the denial of the application. They claimed that the denial was against the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Moreover, they argued that Medico had corrupt ties to a renowned United States Congressman hence the criminal record of Medico was an issue of public interest. The United States Department of Justice Department went ahead and made an appeal from an unfavorable appellate decision. The Supreme Court granted the petitioner certiorari (Illinois Institute, 2017).
Supreme Court Ruling Analysis
The decision by the Supreme Court was based on a decision that covers personal privacy of an individual (Illinois Institute, 2017). The public record took a more standard turn in the court because it gave the impression that it was in the best of interest of the public interest. However, on a closer view, the Court focused on the rights of individuals and pointed out that the impact on people could not be measured against the interest of the public. The case helped in highlighting the clarity of what is in and is not in the public record by maintaining that the rights of individuals needed protection at all times. The Supreme Court argued that the mere fact that the federal funds were spent to prepare and keep the criminal history of crimes is a demonstration that the information in such files or summaries will not be freely available to the public.
Additionally, if the records were freely accessible, there would be no need to call upon FOIA in an attempt to acquire the information they have (McConnell, 2013). There were nine judges in the overall vote count of the case that resulted in the unanimous decision. The court maintained that the interest of an individual in the nondisclosure of any unlawful documentation that is in the control of the FBI is regarded as individual confidentiality. The court also held that the interest of the public in criminal record information is not elevated because the party that is requesting is a news agency (Illinois Institute, 2017).
Opinion on the Ruling
Charles Medico was a criminal who had corrupt links with the government officials. Denial of the CBS officials the request to access the criminal identification records of Medico by the FBI is somehow political motivated, and the court is biased to some extent. One may assume that the FBI were acting under the orders of some politicians or government officials of high status to prevent members of the press from accessing the information that could maybe tarnish the names of the politicians involved and make them lose their reputation and trust towards the people. It is, therefore, clear that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the case was made under the influence from powerful government officials to suppress the rights of the members of the press. That indicates that I would not have the same way as the Supreme Court on the ruling.
Conclusion
From the case involving the Department of Justice and the Press Committee, it is clear that the distinction between the personal privacy and freedom of the press is ambiguous (Jacobs & Larrauri, 2012). From a series of rulings by various judges both from the trial courts to the courts of appeal, there were conflicting views by the judges concerning the two. However, it is important to note that personal privacy of an individual should not override other rights or freedoms simply because that individual has some links with some federal officials. Citizens have the right to know what is happening and this can only happen if the press is empowered in the society and not limited by biased rules and regulations.
References
Institute, I. (2017). Department of Justice V. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-1379.
Jacobs, J. B., & Larrauri, E. (2012). Are criminal convictions a public matter? The USA and Spain. Punishment & Society, 14(1), 3-28.
McConnell, M. W. (2013). Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case. Yale LJ, 123, 412.
