Journalism and national security
Where are the ethical and public interest red lines?
A report published in the Globe and Mail today (December 27) by the duo of Bob Fife and Steve Chase raises for me some profound issues around the use of anonymous sources and the potential damage that can be done to national security and the public interest
The story in question, for Globe subscribers, can be found here:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-rcmp-expected-to-make-arrests-soon-in-sikh-leaders-slaying/
The report concerns information provided to Fife and Chase by anonymous (or, as the Globe prefers it, “confidential”) sources regarding the ongoing RCMP investigation into the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June. As many readers will know, the Prime Minister made a statement on the opening day of the Parliamentary session in September that indicated that Canadian intelligence had developed “credible allegations” of Indian state involvement in the assassination of Nijjar. This caused a created a major breakdown in relations between Canada and India, a hoped-for ally in Canada’s new foreign policy for the Indo-Pacific. The timing and nature of the Prime Minister’s statement was likely a product of earlier leaks to the Globe and Mail, which to some degree forced his hand and helped launch this very public diplomatic battle.
This new story by Fife and Chase contains details of an ongoing RCMP investigation into the Nijjar killing. According to the reporters their anonymous sources told them three things:
that the suspected killers “never left Canada” after Nijjar’s assassination
that the suspected killers “have been under police surveillance for months”
and that “the RCMP are expected to make arrests and lay charges in the coming weeks”
All of these claims are certainly news and news-worthy in their significance.
But the ethical and public interest questions are—should they have been published by the reporters and the newspaper that received these anonymous leaks?
I don’t claim to be an expert in journalistic ethics and I am not a trained journalist. But I would lay some claim to a reasonable knowledge of ethics and of national security.
Ethical choices are usually about weighing the harms against the benefits of some course of action. Similarly public interest questions, which can go to the heart of whistleblowing (in the face of a perceived wrong or illegal act) involve a balancing calculation about the public right to know against the damage to public interest.
It seems to me there are clear harms in publishing this story. They involve the potential to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation with major national security implications, even to undermine it or nullify it. I am having difficulty identifying the public interest or the ethical rationale involved in publishing this story.
If there has been a RCMP investigation, including surveillance, involving the suspected killers of Mr. Nijjar that has lasted “several months” this is a tell-tale sign of two things. One is that the RCMP is attempting to acquire more evidence for prosecution and may be facing a challenging task. The other is that the RCMP is trying to determine the involvement of suspected accomplices, including Indian officials. Remember, surveillance can include court-warranted physical surveillance and communications monitoring. Such surveillance is conducted with the intention that it remain unknown to the investigatory targets, for obvious reasons. But perhaps this is not so obvious to Messrs Fife and Chase, or perhaps they can claim a higher interest in telling the story?
The Globe story also indicates that the authorities know that the suspected killers have never left Canada. Let’s say they were in hiding, trying to mask their identity and location. Now they have a big clue to the fact that they have been uncovered. Could this put them on the run? Seems reasonable.
And then there is the added element of the story that the RCMP intended to lay charges and makes arrests “in the coming weeks.” So, hey killers, you still have some time to make a getaway.
The ability of the RCMP to make arrests in this case is undoubtedly of high national security import, and therefore of high public interest. Laying charges in the case is a clear path to trying to trying to force the Indian government into a re-consideration of any role it may have played in the assassination of the Sikh activist and a toning down of its shrill effort to play the game of “plausible deniability.” This has been precisely the result of the US indictment. The Canadian authorities would also like to be able to indicate to allied partners such as the US, that they, too, can prosecute any attempt at extrajudicial killings.
The divisive impact within Canada of the allegations surrounding responsibility for the Nijjar killings may also be calmed by seeing a legal process at work in full public view.
In other words, the requirements of national security and the public interest align in seeing Mr. Nijjar’s killers brought to justice and in seeing any official Indian involvement brought to light. A news story that may upend that attempt seems to me to cross some red lines and indicate a failure to properly weigh the damage that may be done.
Given the potential serious damage to national security and the public interest, I can’t help wondering what the conceivable benefit might be?
Not all leaks are worth a story. Not all scoops should be acted on in the heat of the moment.
If my colleagues in the media or readers feel I am wrong about this, I stand ready to be corrected.
I suspect that the leak most likely came from the RCMP. It would be inappropriate for the investigators to be sharing those details with civilians in the federal government. I can only guess why the RCMP would talk to the press; they must have known that the reporters would publish what they were told. The reporters from the Globe would not "burn" a source, so they wouldn't publish something unless they felt the source was okay with it. There was a reason this information was disclosed.
Professor Wark, you write, in part, "I am having difficulty identifying the public interest or ethical rationale ..."
I see what you are saying if, so to speak, that is all there is. On the other hand, on the other hand (pretty soon we get to twenty-five hands, no?), perhaps there are, as they say, other considerations in play.
I am a non-specialist, non-expert in pretty much anything. Except that I am "of an age" as used to be said. That means that I remember when the Mounties burned barns to .... why did they burn those barns; did the burning of those barns really dissuade the FLQ? I remember Mounties following terrorists while said terrorists practiced blowing up bombs before loading those bombs on Air India flights and the only things that happened were an airplane blew up and killed 329 people and only one guy (Inderjit Singh Reyat) spent some time in the can - but was only convicted about eighteen years later. I remember when the Mounties were separated from CSIS as they (the Mounties) weren't trained for national intelligence, etc., etc. or some such excuse. I remember Mounties unable to protect a prominent BC politician (who subsequently became BC Premier and then a federal cabinet minister) from an incredibly vicious, life threatening beating because he was vocal about his opposition to the Khalistani independence movement in Canada. I remember the Mounties being unable to bring charges, let alone to trial, (conviction? it is to laugh!) against conspirators on Canadian soil and in Canadian temples all of whom were clearly trying to overthrow the government of an ally. I remember, I remember, I remember ..... too damned much.
So, I am pretty much a non-specialist, non-expert but I do remember. I remember the fumbling idiots in red serge who simply could not do their job. Was it the law itself? Was it the quality folks who wore the uniform? Who knows? All I can say is that they have demonstrated historic and current inability to do their job.
So, to your point. If we assume that Chase and Fife are correct, is it possible that they published so that the cursed redcoats couldn't fumble this away and sweep it under the rug yet again?