ABSTRACT
Leaking, whistleblowing, and publishing classified information all violate the law prohibiting unauthorized disclosures. As a matter of legal and political practice, however, only leakers/whistleblowers are prosecuted; reporters, editors, publishers go unpunished. The media advance several arguments supporting their unique privilege to do with impunity what the law prohibits. According to one influential argument, the media are professionally entitled to reveal state secrets in virtue of their status as a “fourth branch of government” and a “trustee of the people’s right to know.” Another popular argument appeals to freedom of the press. By virtue of this freedom, the media may publish whatever editors choose, including state secrets. I examine and reject these arguments. While rejecting the media privilege, I concede that the media may be justified in publishing classified information on the same grounds on which unauthorized disclosures by other social actors may be morally permissible. In particular, there is no moral difference between whistleblowing civil servants disclosing classified information and the media who publish/broadcast it. As the justification is the same, so are its limiting conditions: Media disclosures are not justified unless they disclose governmental wrongdoing; the strength of their permissibility reflects the way in which they are made. This implies that, unlike current practice, the legal accountability for unauthorized disclosures by the media and by whistleblowers should be the same: if the prosecution targets whistleblowers, it should also target the media. If the media go unpunished, so should whistleblowers.
