Should reporters be protected from revealing their sources?

[BrickCop]

Do you think reporters should have a Federal "shield" law enacted to protect them from having to reveal a source? I heard talk of that on the radio today. This is big in the news right now with one reporter choosing jail over revealing her source in the CIA leaked identity case.

Ordinarily I'd say reporters should be protected but in cases like this where the agent's identity was exposed I say the source should be made available to a judge. I consider knowingly endangering an CIA operative akin to shouting fire in the crowded movie theater.

There should be a common sense factor applied to any proposed federal shield law. In this case the need for the big scoop should have not overridden the need to protect this operative from harm's way.

What do you think?

[Delta784]

Confidential sources should always be protected. If some information is revealed to a reporter that is potentially damaging to national security or could endanger someone's safety, IMO it's up to the reporter to not publish it.

[pkagel]

I think that by the very fact that the reporter is in jail proves the fire in a theater argument. I'm with you one this. Generally, they should be protected up until the point where somebody could potentially be harmed by their silence.

[Centurion44]

It's a tricky issue. My gut answer is "yes". But what if it's not a reliable source? Or worse, the source is intentionally trying to spread misinformation? Should this be allowed to happen with no legal consequence?

I guess generally speaking, yes they should be protected. But I could see exceptions creeping up. Good question.

[toasterlocker]

.................

[Stan Switek]

As a general rule, I support reporters protecting their sources. However, in this case an operational CIA agent was identified. Completely unacceptable. I can't support this in matters of national security.

[ProWriter]

...I consider knowingly endangering an CIA operative akin to shouting fire in the crowded movie theater...There should be a common sense factor applied to any proposed federal shield law. In this case the need for the big scoop should have not overridden the need to protect this operative from harm's way. What do you think?I'd suggest the first common sense line could be drawn between information on something after the fact and information relevant to prevention, beforehand. Therefore, the only thing I'd equate to shouting fire would be information necessary to still prevent harm, (or protect the operative before the disclosure, etc), but not necessarily to ID or prosecute those responsible for harm, afterwards. In the case of information necessary to prevent harm of certain types and magnitude, I'd even consider allowing torture, in certain cases, as suggested by Alan Dershowitz, with respect to the war on terrorism...but that's a whole 'nother story. (Torture of terrorist operatives, that is, not reporters.)

I think that by the very fact that the reporter is in jail proves the fire in a theater argument. I haven't followed this case, in particular, but I think all that proves is that he was held in contempt of court, and not anything on the underlying issue.

I'm with you one this. Generally, they should be protected up until the point where somebody could potentially be harmed by their silence. Right. Before the disclosure, to prevent it, if possible. Not to prosecute, afterwards.

Also, keep in mind that if reporters lose any protection, it will eventually become a moot point, because they just won't be getting any more confidential info capable of being used to prevent harm in the first place; we just won't get that news anymore.

[chiefhuntr]

Confidential sources should always be protected. If some information is revealed to a reporter that is potentially damaging to national security or could endanger someone's safety, IMO it's up to the reporter to not publish it.


Maby with cops, but to the news guy? :eek: I think not. If you dont want people to know you told on them, dont tell the newspaper... Call the police. :mad: :cool:

[Runnin' 87]

If reports can not be caused to reveal their sources. What is there to prevent the reporter from claiming to have a souce, that in relaity does not exist?

[Bowles]

IMO, anyone, reporter, doctor, clergy etc. who has knowledge that someone has committed a crime has an obligation to report it, including how they came to have this information and from who it was obtained.

[Delta784]

Maby with cops, but to the news guy? :eek: I think not. If you dont want people to know you told on them, dont tell the newspaper... Call the police. :mad: :cool:

Why should a reporter be absolved of all blame when they knowingly release information that they know is damaging to national security?

[CarCop]

Great point Delta.

If a federal "law" is passed then where does it end?.. Let's change the BTK case around a bit. The BTK killer used the media to exploit his murders. What if a reporter doing a story on the killer was getting info from the killer himself. Do you keep it as a confidential source or do you tell the cops? Hey it's a confidential source!!! I know it's a stretch but how long 'til we get to that point.

A crime is a crime and should not be protected as some reporters source. Like Bowles said they should have an obligation to report it, if not legally at least morally. If a reporter chooses to keep it "secret" than don't publish it. If they do and end up going to jail to protect their source then shut the hell up and sit in jail, it was their choice.

[OFK]

"Real" reporters, who have real journalistic integrity have a right to have their "reliable" sources kept confidential however most reporters are total whores and have a huge agenda. The line has been blurred and in the land of fake info, it's rather difficult to want to or be able to protect the source.

[retired]

The SC has already ruled that reporters do not have a 1st amendment right not to testify before a Grand Jury.

Branzburg Vs Hayes 1972.

The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the case involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no Constitutional violation. The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court.

[Stonie]

A new twist on the case ... Rove says he found out about Plame from the reporters.

So um, where did the reporters get their info about Plame, then? :rolleyes: I doubt they had the proper security clearance to find out themselves.

[The Don]

How long can a judge,State or Federal sentence someone for contempe of court for not revealing their sources,or refusing to answer the Judges Question,and will the person serve the sentence in county lockup or federal lockup????????? :confused:

[Stonie]

In this case, the reporter is in lockup until the grand jury's investigation is complete.

[Bighead]

One Question: Are you protected from revealing your sources?

[premium]

The way I see it is the actual crime being committed was that the identity/confidential material were revealed to the press. In other words the press them self played a role in the direct crime which was being investigated.

Even the fact that Judith Miller did not write a story on the matter does not keep it from becoming an offense. The offense was the communication to an outsider without clearance not the story itself. Furthermore if she did not report the story then she can not claim to be a journalist. You can't have it both ways.

In that regards it is very different then a journalist simply reporting a crime and knowing the source to be a criminal. In that case the direct crime would be separate from the communication with the reporter. It is not illegal to communicate with a criminal nor is it illegal to not report a criminal act to the authorities.

[equinox137]

As a general rule, I support reporters protecting their sources. However, in this case an operational CIA agent was identified. Completely unacceptable. I can't support this in matters of national security.

Only problem is that Plame was not an "operative" - she was an analyst that was pulled out of the field long before this happened.

[Centurion44]

Isn't ironic that if you accuse me of stalking you and I'm arrested for it, I have a legal right to know who you are.

But if you tell a reporter I like to have sex with wild animals and it makes the news, all of a sudden you're "protected"?

[Bowles]

If the source committed a crime by revealing the information, or if as a result of the information others are being charged with a crime, I say yes they should be forced to identify their source.