A “Massive and Unprecedented Intrusion”

Abstract

In May 13, 2013, the Associated Press announced that the United States Department of Justice had secretly subpoenaed phone records from Associated Press phone lines over a two-month period in early 2012. A few days later, on May 17, the Washington Post revealed that the Department of Justice had also been tracking the activities of Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen. These two stories caused large scandals in the United States, and the majority of American journalists denounced the surveillance. As these scandals were still unfolding, yet another government surveillance scandal broke: former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the federal government had been collecting the cell phone metadata of American citizens for several years. Journalists’ responses to this scandal were more nuanced; editorials expressed a wider spectrum of views about the ethics of government surveillance practices, and more complex opinions about the legitimacy and necessity of government surveillance. Drawing on approaches to journalistic professionalism, this study uses qualitative textual analysis to assess editorials written in response to these three revelations. The analysis suggests that journalists see their speech as something deserving of unique protections, above and beyond those protections afforded to the general public.