Public Needs to Know Is it Possible

Public Needs to Know Is it possible to balance the public need to know and the need for secrecy on issues relating to national security? This is a question that has been floated in quite a number of forums. While there are those who push for absolute or partial secrecy when it comes to issues touching on national security, others are convinced that the public need to know should be upheld by backing a free press. I support the latter view.

In a society considered truly self-governing, authority is delegated to political leaders, judges and legislators and the public largely depends on free information flow so as to engage in meaningful debate and make relevant contributions on public issues.

According to Killenberg (2007), majority of "Americans lack the means and time to stay fully informed." This in the author's opinion has meant that members of the fourth estate have to play the surrogate role so as to ensure that the "public's right to know" is not only defended but also fully exercised (Killenberg, 2007). In my view, supporting a free press is critical both in times of tranquility and national crisis i.e. war.

In this discussion, I stress the need for a free press as it is through the press that the public gets most information. According to Killenberg (2007), "information is the oxygen of democracy." Hence cutting the public off from the supply of vital government information is tantamount to denying democracy space to thrive. It is important to note that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted so as to facilitate public access to records held by the government.

In this case, only information whose disclosure is lawfully withheld cannot be disclosed by the relevant agencies upon a written request. However, the reality on the ground is that official secrecy often constrains and constricts conduits to information even when there are no substantive grounds for withholding the disclosure of the same. For instance, Killenberg (2007) notes that in some cases, journalists and other individuals seeking access to government information have to contend with what he calls "passive-resistance" characterized by delays as well as foot-dragging.

Indeed, to ensure that threats to information access are documented, the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government has a dedicated Web site that highlights a wide range of government procedures and tactics which threaten access to information. This in a way is a clear demonstration of the unwillingness of the government to comply with the FOIA provisions. In my opinion, ensuring that the need for the public to know is guaranteed is perhaps the first step towards accountability on the part of the government.

When a country is faced with vital decisions on whether to undertake a specific course of action i.e. In relation to foreign aid, military activity etc., it is important that the public be kept aware of all the relevant developments. This can only be done by going way past the official press releases. Apart from enhancing accountability, this facilitates sharing of views. It is such multiple perspectives that push governments towards doing what is right for the nation.

Thus to foster government accountability, the public needs to know what its democratically elected government is up to. It is however important to note that in some cases, the government does have a legit reason to block public access to classified information. For instance, when the release of such information could end up aiding the enemy or endangering the life of an individual; the government has a responsibility to ensure that such information does not find its way to the public domain.

However, it should be noted that there exists a thin line between what the government considers sensitive information and what actually is sensitive information. In an interview with FRONTLINE (2007), former Los Angeles Times editor, Dean Banquet was of the opinion that even in those instances where the government offered editors a reason not to publish; history showed that such reasons were not always sincere.

Hence in some cases, media outlets have to risk prosecution by allowing information to flow to the public even in those instances where the government has raised objections over such a move. Thus in most scenarios, the public needs to have its need to know satisfied especially in those instances where the objections raised by the government do not seem sincere.

Further, it can be noted that in most cases, the attempt by news agencies to ensure that the public need to know is respected is frustrated by well-coordinated efforts to conceal information. In such cases, most news.