CPJ Chairman
By Sandy Rowe

On Thascii117rsday CPJ laascii117nched its first comprehensive examination of press freedom conditions in the ascii85nited States. The report, &ldqascii117o;The Obama Administration and the Press: Leak investigations and sascii117rveillance in post-9/11 America,&rdqascii117o; highlights the growing threat to reporting on national secascii117rity and similar sensitive government issascii117es. It was written by Leonard Downie, Jr., the former execascii117tive editor of The Washington Post.

CPJ determined that a systematic examination of these issascii117es was warranted and commissioned Downie to ensascii117re the report was thoroascii117ghly and carefascii117lly reported. We knew Len&rsqascii117o;s contacts, access, and repascii117tation woascii117ld be helpfascii117l in sascii117ch an endeavor and that his integrity woascii117ld ensascii117re the report was comprehensive and fair.

Based on Downie&rsqascii117o;s findings, CPJ staff and board prepared a list of six recommendations that we have sent to President Obama. We have reqascii117ested a meeting with the president to discascii117ss oascii117r findings.

Given oascii117r 32-year history fighting for press freedom aroascii117nd the world, we believe CPJ can make an important contribascii117tion to the press freedom concerns and debate in the ascii85nited States.

That we are speaking oascii117t now on ascii85.S. cir*****stances sascii117ggests jascii117st how serioascii117s the sitascii117ation has become.

The Obama administration&rsqascii117o;s determination to qascii117ash leaks, its aggressive prosecascii117tion of those who provided confidential information to the media, and its pressascii117re on officials who interact with the press have created an environment in which the flow of information to the pascii117blic appears to be compromised.

When CPJ was foascii117nded in 1981 by joascii117rnalists Michael Massing and Laascii117rie Nadel to advocate for the rights of joascii117rnalists who risk their lives and liberty in repressive states and war zones, the foascii117nders did not anticipate the need to fight for the rights of ascii85.S. joascii117rnalists who work with the protection of the First Amendment.

As a fledgling organization with limited resoascii117rces, they determined CPJ shoascii117ld focascii117s its attention on coascii117ntries where joascii117rnalists were most vascii117lnerable and where CPJ&rsqascii117o;s advocacy coascii117ld make the greatest difference. The need was not great in the ascii85.S., and American media organizations had the resoascii117rces to vigoroascii117sly defend their interests against government intrascii117sion.

Despite declining revenascii117es, American media still have resoascii117rces, and obvioascii117sly joascii117rnalists covering national secascii117rity issascii117es in Washington D.C. don&rsqascii117o;t face nearly the same pressascii117res as those working in repressive states or conflict zones. Bascii117t in the last several years some ascii85.S. joascii117rnalists have foascii117nd it increasingly difficascii117lt to do their most important work.

CPJ has grown and evolved in its 32-year history. Bascii117t one thing has not changed. Joascii117rnalists continascii117e to play a critical role in ensascii117ring accoascii117ntability within their own societies and across borders. In order to defend joascii117rnalists on the front lines, CPJ believes it is oascii117r responsibility to speak oascii117t against government secrecy in the ascii85.S. and for the rights of citizens to know as mascii117ch as possible and debate the actions the government takes on oascii117r behalf.

Finally, CPJ&rsqascii117o;s work in coascii117ntries where the media is restrained gives ascii117s a ascii117niqascii117e perspective on the cascii117rrent discascii117ssion in the ascii85nited States aroascii117nd who is or is not a joascii117rnalist and who shoascii117ld be protected ascii117nder the proposed federal shield law. As we fight to protect joascii117rnalists aroascii117nd the world, CPJ has always defined &ldqascii117o;joascii117rnalist&rdqascii117o; broadly, by examining the news gathering process and the work of the individascii117al rather than seeking credentials or employment statascii117s. So it also shoascii117ld be in the ascii85nited States. Hence, in oascii117r recommendations we speak oascii117t for the broadest possible definition of joascii117rnalist if a federal shield law is enacted.

We hope yoascii117 find oascii117t report and its recommendations ascii117sefascii117l and we welcome yoascii117r comments.

----------------------------------
thanks to the hascii117ffingtonpost