On Thursday night, I headed up to Columbia after work for the J School's Journalism After Snowden panel. It was the inaugural event in what, according to Tow Center for Digital Journalism leader Emily Bell, will be a year-long project aimed at considering how journalism has changed in the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks and the media's coverage of them. Bell also mentioned that the Tow Center is working on new tools to help investigative journalists with stories like this one.

The panel included Guardian US's EIC Janine Gibson, NYT Executive Editor Jill Abramson, legal scholar and former Obama administration "regulatory czar" Cass Sunstein and First Amendment attorney Dave Schulz. 

It was an enlightening discussion, heated at times, touching on both the strides and mistakes the media made in the aftermath of Snowden's leaks. Gibson gave a riveting recap of how the Guardian US got the story, describing everything from Glenn Greenwald's first phone call to the extreme measures that had to be taken to ensure secrecy while maintaining journalistic ethics and not breaking the law. And Abramson answered Bell's question about whether it was a "failure of the press" that everyone was so shocked after the information leaked with a resounding "no." The media has not been asleep, she said, the fact that Snowden had to break the news was just a testament to how big the problem is.

And from the attorneys came a call to action: both Schulz and Sunstein argue that we need a better definition of "privacy" in this country.

I live-tweeted the event, and below are a few of the comments from the panelists that resonated with me. Unfortunately, the CMS I'm using doesn't support embedding Tweets, so these are screen caps. (Side note: the #aftersnowden hashtag had an interesting impact outside the journalism community/those who were actually at the event. I saw unaffiliated users talking about how they felt less secure online #aftersnowden, while others questioned why we were talking about "after" when the story is still unfolding.)




I meant to say *and* here, not *as,* but Sunstein made an interesting point -- it's a bit of a cop out when the government uses "maintaining a 'balance'" as an excuse for undue surveillance/persecution of journalists/lack of transparency.



Schulz also noted that while the US AG recently said that he would "not prosecute journalists for doing journalism," we don't have a clear, legal definition of "doing journalism." 



Is one OK for the government to gather/keep and the other not? Why?

And how have Snowden's leaks and the government's response to the media's coverage impacted journalism? The following two quotes from Abramson and Gibson sum it up, and it's not a pretty picture. 





That last comment really stuck with me. On several occasions, prosecutors have attempted to accuse journalists of violations of the Espionage Act, and Greenwald has been labeled a "co-conspirator" of Snowden's. The legal scholars recommended (to the government) a re-reading of the Espionage Act, and a re-acquaintance with its historical context, while the editors expressed uncertainty about what might come next. Members of the Guardian staff are still being investigated for their alleged part in Snowden's leak, and if the executive editor of the New York Times says the fallout is chilling sources, if not reporters, it's clear the impact has been huge. But is it irreversible? 

The recommendations made by Sunstein and his colleagues about personal privacy are a step in the right direction, but I think when it comes to avoiding the criminalization of journalism, we may need to move toward Schulz's suggestion of establishing an official standard of "doing journalism."