I remember vividly the day I sat in Journalism Law & Ethics class last November. The professor said that in about a year, source confidentiality would be a big issue. Part of me believed her, the other part of me felt it was just another journalism issue that would never get enough national airtime.
The latter turned out to be right.
The case that started the controversy was the 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzburg v. Hayes, where the SCOTUS ruled that reporters do not have a First Amendment right to protect the anonymity of sources against federal grand juries. The juiciness of the controversy came from the split 4-1-4 decision — a closer ruling than even Roe v. Wade or Bush v. Gore.
Bear in mind it doesn’t necessarily mean that reporters don’t have the right to protect their sources. It just doesn’t fall under the First Amendment, which is why the federal shield law keeps popping up from time to time.
Proposed shield laws, the latest coming from Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar and Rep. Mike Pence, are generally written to prevent courts from forcing journalists to testify or reveal their sources/notes.
The issue is the crux the CIA leak scandal, once you get past the Rove-versus-liberals heavyweight bout. And because the issue of source confidentiality is not fully resolved, odd things are happening beyond this case. By examining other case studies, thereby sidestepping all this partisan junk, we can paint a better picture of how journalism functions without source protection.
Article comments
1 - Nancy
Interesting proposal, that: licensing journalists. Mmmm...I can hear them screaming already.
Aside from that, part of the problem here is the fact that shielding has to walk a fine line between protecting whistleblowers, & ensuring that law enforcement is able to prosecute criminals. Watergate would not have happened w/out M. Felt, who for varying reasons of his own ended up protecting the public & the constitution by enabling the fall of Nixon. On the other hand, I would not care to have a reporter shielded, if they were shielding, say, Manuel Noriega or John Gotti. One would HOPE media types would have the brains & fine judgement to make the distinction, but such is obviously not the case. This is one of those ongoing issues that will always have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, I suspect, instead of a sweeping coverall.
2 - Maynard
who watches the watchmen?
problem i have with this would be the concept of the fox watching the henhouse.
example: Jeff Gannon gets his card from McClellan, but Bob Woodward doesn't.
who does the 4th Estate serve? the people, not the government.