One thing we both agree on is that there needs to be a federal shield law that sets guidelines for a journalist's interaction with an anonymous source. But the question is, how far should such a shield law go? Should it protect journalists in all cases, essentially allowing them to determine how they use anonymous sources, or should it perhaps provide exemptions when, say, a felony has been committed (as may be the case here) or where the public interest would seem to outweigh the need to keep the identity of an anonymous source secret?
On these questions, I tend to side with the freedom of the press to use anonymous sources without fear of punishment, but I acknowledge that this is a sensitive issue that needs greater thought and that the case for a more limited shield law is a fairly strong one.
For now, I also encourage you to check out the Times's editorial on Judith Miller (one of its own reporters):
She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so
journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.
Some people - including, sadly, some of our colleagues in the news media - have mistakenly assumed that a reporter and a news organization place themselves above the law by rejecting a court order to testify. Nothing could be further from the truth. When another Times reporter, M. A. Farber, went to jail in 1978 rather than release his confidential notes, he declared, "I have no such right and I seek none."
By accepting her sentence, Ms. Miller bowed to the authority of the court. But she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding, which holds that the common good is best served in some instances by private citizens who are willing to defy a legal, but unjust or unwise, order...
Critics point out that even presidents must bow to the Supreme Court. But presidents are agents of the government, sworn to enforce the law. Journalists are private citizens, and Ms. Miller's actions are faithful to the Constitution. She is defending the right of Americans to get vital information from news organizations that need not fear government retaliation - an imperative defended by the 49 states that recognize a reporter's right to protect sources...
We do not see how a newspaper, magazine or television station can support a reporter's decision to protect confidential sources even if the potential price is lost liberty, and then hand over the notes or documents that make the reporter's sacrifice meaningless. The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected. No journalist's promise will be worth much if the employer that stands behind him or her is prepared to undercut such a vow of secrecy.
Needless to say, the Times supports the (limited) use of anonymous sources. In the end, I'd like to know who told Miller what about Plame -- that is, who outed Plame as a CIA agent. Maybe it was Rove, maybe it wasn't, but it could very well have been some highly-placed White House official. I still think that Miller and the Times are right and that journalists shouldn't be forced to reveal their anonymous sources -- and I say this because, to me, the freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy. A little less freedom may not seem like much, especially when an anonymous source may very well be a felon, but we need to be very careful before we push over what could be the first domino...
No comments:
Post a Comment