Waters, S. (2017). The Effects of Mass Surveillance on Journalists’ Relations With Confidential Sources: A constant comparative study.

From Digital Culture & Society

Waters, S. (2017). The Effects of Mass Surveillance on Journalists’ Relations with Confidential Sources: A constant comparative study. Digital Journalism, 1-20 [1]

Danielle Fenton

The Effects of Mass Surveillance on Journalists’ Relations with Confidential Sources: A constant comparative study, is a qualitative exploration of how national security journalists communicate online using digital security technologies to evade potential surveillance by government authorities (p.1). Using a panoptic framework, this study states that individuals under surveillance have tendencies to alter their behaviour under the real or perceived observation of authority. Through a constant comparative methodology, researcher Stephenson Waters conducts a series of seven in-depth interviews with journalists who have reported changes in their work abilities under the threat of mass government surveillance before and after Snowden’s disclosures of the NSA’s advanced surveillance system PRISM. Waters, through this study, explores how such measures of information security makes the work of journalists more difficult, especially in regards to damaging communications with their sources.

Waters determines that the objective of this study is to explore whether journalists who cover NSA and national security take additional security measures when using digital communication and does so by generating various research questions and proposing different hypotheses (p.3). The two hypotheses of focus are that under a perceived threat of government surveillance programs, American journalist who cover national security issues will disclose that they believe: 1. Surveillance has a negative effect on their work and we will have altered their professional practices toward more secure digital communication regarding source confidentiality, source protection and data security. 2. Surveillance has a negative effect on their personal lives, and that they have taken additional steps to secure personal communication and information (p.5) The study analyzed concerns individual journalists have regarding surveillance- depending on their coverage topic, their work may require the use of confidential sources and the trade of sensitive information (p.3). Therefore, Waters explores the precautionary measures a journalist will take when covering a story.

Waters provides readers with extensive information on the relation between journalists and the NSA’s surveillance project PRISM to express the severity of advanced security technologies on the modern journalistic paradigm. By acknowledging the NSA was surveilling user data and collecting an immense amount of information and that PRISM was designed to collect only information that may pertain to national security investigations, (although Americans’ data may be accidentally collected in the process) Waters is able to explicate the disadvantages of the journalist since the inception of the surveillance program (p.3). Since journalists routinely use digital communication technologies to find, research and interview sources they cover it is imperative that the consequences of surveillance for behaviour in the context of journalists and confidential sources have been explored in this study, since it has not been thoroughly examined in past research.

A strength of this study is that Waters draws on Neil M. Richards’ explanation of surveillance and its harmful effects on society. “From a social aspect, especially regarding freedom of speech and other civil liberties, surveillance by a government or authoritarian entity can have a chilling effect on speech- in essence, surveillance inclines us to the mainstream and boring” (p.4). The paper ties this statement into news media organizations and how they practice surveillance in order to operate. For example, journalists monitor and observe events and people in order to provide stories and analysis of those events and people (p.3). Therefore, Waters expresses how surveillance becomes the “news.” Another key strength is how the researcher places ordinary users of computing devices as victims of surveillance through “cloud computing.” This tactic puts into perspective that “we are participants” as we perform tasks using cloud computing without even realizing it (The Cloud, Gmail, Dropbox, Google Drive) and in the time of need, these resources can be made instantly available.

Waters specifically used a purposive sample of 176 American national security journalists who routinely cover, or have covered, the NSA surveillance programs and similar national security issues (p.7). Therefore, the study avoided taking a broad approach of getting general journalists opinions in order to determine the opinions and actions within this specific population. Waters ensured data security for all participants by keeping the identity of all interview subjects confidential, keeping all interview data such as recordings and transcripts in a locked security safe and then securely deleting the recordings after they the transcripts were secured. “To protect participant confidentiality to increase candor in their responses, participants are identified only by their code ranging from P001 to P007” (p.9). This is a key strength in Water’s study as the anonymity of interview subjects are essential to the success of the research to guarantee accurate data collection and to protect interview subjects from any potential repercussions from the data collection process (p. 8).

Throughout the findings of this study, Waters does not fail to give crucial examples of participant disclosure that supports his hypotheses. He provided transcripts of participants’ answers to his research questions. For example, P002 said that “if journalists are not using adequate tools to protect themselves, there is an increased risk that captured or observed communications will be used against journalists and their sources (p.9). In addition, respondents all agreed that mass surveillance made their jobs more difficult and that they had to become more vigilant with digital communications. Every participant also reported on what P005 called “that Big Brother feeling.” Waters explains the “Big Brother feeling” to his readers as a notion that someone, somewhere, could be observing their communication- a feeling that all readers can resonate with (p.10). What was interesting in this study was the findings that participants who cover surveillance and national security, overall, reported negative effects or changes to their personal communication online, however, they all tend to self-censor when communicating in their personal life, both online and in person (p.11).

The only weakness of this study was that saturation was not reached in terms of the number of participants. Although Water’s study cannot make any generalizable results, this can also be deemed as a positive aspect as this qualitative interview was designed to gain a deeper understanding of the issues at hand (p.18). It would be beneficial for future researchers to look into applying a testable mass communication theory in order to quantify the participants feelings of being over-served. In summation Waters makes it evident through the article The Effects of Mass Surveillance on Journalists’ Relations with Confidential Sources: A constant comparative study that mass surveillance makes investigative journalism increasingly difficult in all its forms and that journalists must adopt security technologies to advocate for a safe, private communication online and with their sources (p.18).