George Rebane
Regarding the national controversy on leaks and leaking, let’s consider the roles of megaphones and media reporters. We understand that a ‘leak’ today is considered as the release of confidential information that is not intended to be widely distributed among the public. A leak requires the participation of at least two functioning ‘agents’ – 1) a person (the Leaker) who decides to divulge information in an unauthorized manner and does so to a third party, and 2) the agent (the Broker) providing the functional means of distributing the information to an audience so as to serve the agenda of the Leaker.
The Leaker’s actions may or not be illegal and therefore criminal. (If it is illegal to transmit the confidential information to an unauthorized recipient, the Leaker becomes a criminal the moment he gives the information to the Broker, regardless of whether the Broker knows the provenance of the information he receives.) The Broker is usually a media reporter who works for an outlet through which he will distribute the leaked information to an audience intended by the Leaker.
Today’s controversy involves the status and role of the Broker as a member of our Fourth Estate, namely the press. Liberal societies perfunctorily hold the role and function of the press to be sacrosanct, since it is thought that it is an unfettered press which keeps ‘the people’ informed of things important to their well being, information that would otherwise be held from them to their ultimate detriment.
However, the role of the Broker becomes controversial when the leaked information is deemed confidential to the level that it affects the security and relations of sovereign nation-states, and the internal operations of their governments. Specifically, does the Broker bear any responsibility for distributing any information he may receive from a Leaker? Or since if the Broker violated no law or explicit stricture of confidentiality, is he free to broadcast the leaked information without further thought or consideration?
To help answer this important question, consider two scenarios. In the first, the Leaker contacts the Broker, transmits the information, and sits back to enjoy the Broker fulfill his function of dissemination. In the second, the Leaker picks up a megaphone (or in the modern era a radio transmitter or an anonymous web post or its many functional equivalents) and, bypassing the Broker, simply disseminates the confidential information himself. We then reformulate the question – does the human Broker have any more responsibility in being part and party to a leak than does a megaphone?
The national debate today does not seem to appreciate this important perspective of what is a leak. For most certainly, if the Leaker gave his information to the Broker who then decided not to further disseminate it, but to simply hold it confidential in perpetuity, there would be no leak. I have not seen any reporter or pundit able to penetrate this simple analysis of the existential components of a leak, and the further ramifications it would raise regarding the responsibilities of an involved Broker/reporter. But to be absolutely frank, I tend to think that a reporter – no matter the low regard that that profession commands in our land – should still be held to a higher standard than a plastic megaphone.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment