I see the theoretical need to protect sources whose information is of a sensitive nature. I understand that sources, especially whistleblowers, might not come forward if there's a risk of their identity being exposed. I get that journalists may have ethical qualms about giving up information about their sources.
What I don't understand is why reporters are the only source to which whistleblowers can turn. In fact, I know that they are not. In a business, wrongdoing should be reported to superiors and, in some cases, law enforcement authorities. In government, there is a series of checks and balances in place for insiders who see fault to turn to for justice.
While the panel spoke about shield laws last week, the lingering question in my mind was "Who gave the press the right?" I'm not talking about freedom of the press; they can print and report whatever they want. But when a reporter's knowledge can lead to obstruction of justice, I'm not thinking about the First Amendment, rather about the rest of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers certainly wanted a free press, but not at the expense of justice, the legal systems in place, and the general safety and prosperity of the American people.
RonNell Jones of the panel shared some of the results of her investigation into subpoenas being issued reporters. The numbers were high, yes, but what sort of cases did the subpoenas come from? What was at stake in those cases? Was the judge justified in issuing a subpoena? She said that prosecutors were taking shortcuts in petitioning for subpoenas for journalists, failing to do the research themselves. Yes, what about those lazy civil servants who take pay cuts, extended hours, grueling case loads, and little thanks to try and keep criminals off the streets? Better they do the work than journalists. Or they should repeat the work a journalist may have already done, just so as not to inconvenience the reporter.
No, I think the burden should remain on the reporter. It should be up to the journalist to find credible sources, inspire trust in their sources, and be held responsible for their knowledge in a court of law. Unlike the confidentiality between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, and priests and the penitent, a source can get his or her information out through more official, lawful, and responsible ways. Then, once the news is actually news, the journalist can report on it.
2 comments:
I see your point and I think it is a good one. My only thought is how does the source report the wrongdoings to authorities in a more responsible way and still remain anonymous? If you were the one tattle taling, would you want everyone to know it was you? I think that is one reason so many turn to the journalists. They help the public know the truth without having to suffer the "publicity" of being the one who tattled. Does that make sense?
I both agree and disagree. I feel that an unidentified source should be avoided at all costs, but that there are some RARE circumstances that require absolute anonymity. So I guess ultimatley I feel it is a case-by-case scenario.
Post a Comment