WHEN DOES THE MEDIA HELP DRUG DEALERS?

A New York Times study published in September finds modern
journalists must act like drug dealers to avoid government spies and
successfully report big issues of possible government corruption.

Reporters should use erasable notes and disposable phones with
untraceable numbers, the study suggests.

This means the National Security Agency isn't only after terrorists.
Brian Ross, the chief investigative reporter for ABC News, said in
May he uses similar techniques to avoid government spies.

Is it lawful for government spies to keep a check on reporters? It is
by today's standard.

The FBI and CIA argue information leaked by government employees
potentially compromises their investigations. In the end, reporters
keep tabs on law enforcement and vice versa. It's an endless cycle of
preemptive information gathering that predates the civil rights movement.

Government insiders who leak classified information are traditionally
known as whistle blowers, and they argue the public has the right to
know what is leaked. This summer the Supreme Court ruled the First
Amendment does not protect the job of a whistle blower, whether he or
she is in government or private business.

Daniel Ellsberg leaked portions of the Pentagon Papers to the Times,
a study of how U.S. foreign military endeavors between 1945 to 1971
affected U.S. policy in Vietnam.

After the Times published excerpts of the paper, President Nixon, who
started the war on drugs, wanted to censor the paper, but the court
ruled no prior restraint on press is permissible unless under "very
unusual circumstances," with this not being one of them.

To publish blueprints for building a nuclear bomb, which at one time
were available in a public library, is a substantial reason for prior
restraint.

With the war on drugs in its 36th year, many of the standards for
reporting on drugs related to prior restraint and the public's right
to know apply.

The media plays a vital role informing the public of drug policies
and related issues. The mainstream stories often focus on the latest
government study heralding the adverse effects of illegal drugs or
the police department's latest bust. Have you seen a story on how
drug dealers can avoid police and the Drug Enforcement Agency, or how
one can petition the government to legalize drugs?

Does the media cross a line when it publishes stories about the full
scope of any unlawful behavior?

In February Stillwater police arrested 11 students on charges of
selling drugs on campus, to which the students, each living on campus
before their arrests, pleaded innocent.

The Daily O'Collegian quoted Lt. Michael Metcalf: "One of them was
innovative enough to where he took Saran wrap around the smoke
detector so the smoke wouldn't set it off." This could give criminals
a technique of evasion, but the press is free to print this information.

Journalists appreciate when police candidly reveal information worth
printing, but where is the line drawn between informing the public
versus giving criminals evasive tactics? Generally, any public
information is fair game.

A court affidavit from 2004 available on the state's court records
Web site lists the ingredients and processes needed to create crystal
methamphetamine. Does this imply a newspaper can publish the
information in a features story on how to make the illegal substance?
Or can a Martha Stewart-type program on television show viewers how to make it?

Another issue is whether media can report stories about police
conduct and investigations.

Stillwater Police Chief Norm McNickle said all police need is an
anonymous tip to tap the phone of a suspected drug dealer. Police can
lawfully lie to stop crime.

For example, they can arrive at your home and request to speak with
you about something unrelated to drugs, even if they only want to
speak with you to find drugs.

Did I break a rule or cross an ethical line when I informed you of
your rights? And most importantly, how far can reporters go to find
any discrepancies in law enforcement's tactics to succeed in its war on drugs?

Drug dealers and journalists alike: consider yourself warned.