Sometimes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses produce unexpected results. Such is the case in a recent response from the secretive United States government’s National Security Agency (NSA) -- the agency that is now in the public limelight for listening to U.S. citizen’s telephone conversations without legal authorization or oversight. In a letter dated February 2, 2006 and signed by its Director of Policy, the NSA revealed that it has contracts with at least two of the major mainstream press wire services, Reuters and Associated Press (AP), and that the information that it had received from these wire services could not be released to the public. Here in part is what the letter said:
“Information provided to NSA by Reuters and AP is protected against disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4). The NSA contract with these companies precludes our release of this information. Violation of these contracts could prevent the government from obtaining similar information in the future.”
The way the NSA response is written makes it seem like there is something major to hide, but this may not be the case. Reuters and many other “mainstream” press agencies have contracts with not only the NSA, but with other U.S. government entities as well -- to supply news to these agencies as if they were newspapers. This is “business as usual” and more than likely occurs with other governments too. But it is also true that in a technical sense, Reuters and AP journalists work for these U.S. government agencies, although the funds from that work only represent an infinitely miniscule part of their salaries.
And it is also a little strange that if Reuters and AP are only supplying the NSA with the same news that it is supplying the rest of us through our news media outlets – why can’t this information – apparently “old news” in this case – be released?
Since this happens all the time and does not represent a very large chunk of these journalists' income, it seems to be no big deal. But this response from the NSA is certainly intriguing.
NSA contracts with AP, Reuters are a big deal
Submitted February 6, 2006 - 8:43 pm by Bill ConroyJeremy Bigwood shares the following with Narco News readers concerning a recent Freedom of Information Act request he made involving the National Security Agency (NSA):
I can only assume that Bigwood, who is a respected and courageous authentic journalist, is proffering his “no big deal” comment with a sardonic tongue in cheek.
Given the recently revealed domestic spying program being carried out by NSA under the orders of the president, some serious questions arise with respect to Bigwood’s revelations. Because, in my opinion, it is a “big deal” if any mainstream news service has a “contract” relationship with any spy agency (either foreign or domestic), particularly when that relationship is hidden from public view -- even when invoking the Freedom of Information Act.
Let’s take a look at portions of AP’s editorial mission statement as a starting point.
Well, if Stone were alive today, I wonder what he would have to say about AP contracting with spook agencies like NSA?
Some serious questions bear asking on this front, and I would hope AP does take them seriously.
How can AP assure the public -- in light of the news service’s 1st Amendment responsibilities -- that the NSA and other government agencies with a clear bias toward spying on other nations don’t misappropriate the AP megaphone to spread disinformation? How can assurance be provided that NSA and other intelligence agencies don’t actually use AP journalists, knowingly or not, to undertake what amounts to spying missions in the name of journalism?
AP’s bold mission statement alone is not enough assurance, in my view, particularly in light of some of the apparent caveats to that mission in the name of bolstering the business side of AP.
More from the AP mission statement:
Might some of these other “outlets” include government agencies like the NSA? This does not seem like such an out-of-bounds question when we consider the types of tailored news services AP provides to its so-called clients.
Take for example AP Digital, and AP’s own description of that service:
Given the government’s response to Bigwood’s FOIA request, that “information provided to NSA by Reuters and AP is protected against disclosure” we have to wonder whether AP’s news delivery service might not, at times, creep over into a content-creation service for the NSA or other intelligence agencies.
What assurances do we have to the contrary, given that the public can’t even access contract details through FOIA?
This is a big deal.
The Queen’s Journalism
The inherent conflict between Reuters’ editorial mission statement and its business interests also raise some “big deal” questions with respect to the NSA contract revelation.
From Reuters mission statement:
Sounds noble. But then there’s the not-so-small matter of Reuters’ “Partner Benefits” package.
From Reuters’ Web site:
I wonder if NSA is a “Reuters Partner,” or could become one if it so desired? Would that then commit Reuters to supporting the “goals” of NSA? That seems like a big deal to me.
More about the “levels” of “partnership” in Reuters Partner Program:
Wow! Sounds like there’s a pretty gray line between Reuters’ news services and its desire to cultivate “mutually strong relationships” with its so-called “partners.”
Given that NSA sees fit to hide behind a FOIA exemption in choosing not to divulge the precise nature of its “contract” relationships with Reuters and AP, I think we can only conclude that such relationships are a “big deal” that require much closer investigation. And maybe that investigation even merits funding from an organization interested in shining a brighter light on the nature of the “gray” corporate matter that seems to be enveloping the 1st Amendment responsibilities of these mainstream news organizations.
After all, what possible objection could AP or Reuters have in helping to shine more light on these fundamental questions involving freedom of the press?
Like AP says in its mission statement:
“Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.”