Amidst a changing journalism industry and a national controversy, Alan Rusbridger risked both his career and his publication’s credibility for the sake of free speech.

Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian, chose to publish stories based on documents about the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities that were leaked by Edward Snowden. As a result, he has been selected to receive Syracuse University’s seventh annual Tully Award for Free Speech. The award ceremony will be held on Wednesday at 7 p.m. in the Joyce Hergenhan Auditorium located in Newhouse III.

Created at the request of the late Joan Tully, the center’s benefactor, the Tully Award honors journalists who have faced significant risks and threats throughout their careers while continuing to defend and preserve free speech.

This year the members of the judging panel selected Rusbridger from among many qualified journalists, said Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and professor in the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. Shortly after being chosen to receive the Tully Award, Rusbridger won the Pulitzer Prize for public service.

“Rusbridger’s case and story was head and shoulders above everything else,” Gutterman said. “Not only was he faced with high pressure situations and harassment, but the government also forced him to destroy computers and threatened him with legal action.”

What makes Rusbridger different from previous recipients of the award is that he is an editor, not just a journalist, said Aileen Gallagher, Newhouse professor and member of the judging panel.

“Someone has to be in charge and sometimes that means an editor, like Rusbridger, has to take big risks involving his publication,” Gallagher said. “Good editors stick their necks out for their writers.”

Another aspect that made Rusbridger stand out from the other applicants was the fact that he was harassed in a very democratic environment — in Britain, where free speech is normally exercised, said Elena Sorokina, Tully Center research assistant and a member of the judging panel.

The selection process is a two-tiered system: first, an external judging panel scours the world for journalists worthy of nomination with each panel member nominating about three to five people. Each nominee is then contacted and asked to apply if they are able to, Gutterman said.

“Sometimes simply being nominated for the award puts certain journalists at too high of a risk, so they have to decline,” Gutterman said.

Those that wish to apply submit their resume and examples of their work, which is then evaluated by an internal judging panel consisting of Newhouse faculty and students.

“This year, we had a list of very deserving nominees,” Sorokina said. “If it was me, I would have given each and every one of them multiple awards.”

Each year’s recipient of the award visits SU for several days where he or she is honored at the award ceremony, receives a cash reward of $2,500 and visits classes across campus.

This is an interesting time for journalism, Gallagher said, and Rusbridger’s case is an example of why.

Said Gallagher: “Governments are becoming less transparent and it’s part of our job as journalists to throw open the door and shed some light on situations like these.”

Published on October 1, 2014 at 12:01 am

Contact Sara: [email protected] | @saramswann