 |
The Argument for Confidentiality
Most states have laws that shield reporters from having to disclose their sources in most legal proceedings. However, there is no national shield law — a sensitive issue, especially among journalists. A recent survey by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center found that Americans are divided on whether or not news organizations should use unnamed sources in their reporting.
About half (52%) say the use of such sources is too risky because it can lead to inaccurate reports, while 44% say it is okay because it can yield important news that they otherwise wouldn't get. But most Americans think the use of confidential sources is at least sometimes justified. Over three-quarters (76%) think reporters should sometimes be allowed to keep their sources confidential if that is the only way to get information, while 19% say reporters should always reveal their sources.
In May 2004, Lucy Dalglish, head of the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press explained to NPR's ON THE MEDIA that the media often rely on leaks, especially on national security issues. Dalglish said, "Journalists keep their ethical obligation not to reveal confidential sources. They value it just as much as doctors and lawyers and priests view their obligations to keep information confidential."
FAIR, a national media watchdog, released a statement in August 2004, responding to the CIA leak: "Protecting the identities of confidential sources is a journalistic right that should be recognized by the courts, but only when it protects genuine whistle-blowers, not when it shields government wrongdoing."
Many news organizations have specific policies guiding their reporters' behavior when it comes to protecting sources. The American Society of Newspaper Editors includes the following article in its Statement of Principles:
Journalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond. Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly. Unless there is clear and pressing need to maintain confidences, sources of information should be identified.
Learn more about confidential sources and the proposal for a federal shield law at the following sites:
- Reporters and Federal Subpoenas, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- A State-by-State Guide to Journalist Shield Laws, The Poynter Institute
- "Shield law gets a boost," BOSTON HERALD, October 27, 2005
-
"Why journalists need a shield law," THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, October 23, 2005
- "Testimony on Proposed Federal Shield Law," ASSOCIATED PRESS, October 19, 2005
- "State shield statutes and leading cases," First Amendment Center, October 17, 2005
- "Do Journalists Need a Better Shield?", First Amendment Center, re-posted from LEGAL AFFAIRS, December 14, 2004
|
|
