Journalist Judith Miller Jailed ~ Should journalist be forced to give up their sources?
New York Times Journalist, Judith Miller, told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan that she had no choice but to protect her source in a case that has drawn nationwide attention and renewed debate over a common practice by reporters. "If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press," Miller said.
"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," Judge Hogan said.
More than 20 reporters have been jailed for refusing to identify sources in the past three decades, according to the group.
In order to keep the trust of informants, under certain circumstances journalist should be able to keep their sources confidential. However if a persons life is in danger, not their livelihood, then it would be appropriate to expose the source.
At the sametime, one would have to consider the endangerment of the informant also. Hence, a discovery would be necessary before forcing a source.
What do you think, should journalist be forced to give up their sources?
More On The Story At USA Today
3 Bloggers have commented
You pose a very good question. I think the more specific question, however, is whether forcing a journalist to reveal his or her source is a violation of free press? There are certain restrictions of free speech that are obviously in violation of the constitution such as prior restraint, censorship, etc.
However, when one is required to follow a legal requirement (i.e. compelling a witness to testify) that on its face does not proscribe a free press, it may not violate the First Amendment. For instance, everyone cannot break in and enter a private home or business. This applies equally to the press. The press' freedom is not violated simply because they are not allowed to find a story by trespassing. The question is, where does compelling a journalist to testify fall? As a regular legal requirement or as a violation of a free press? Being more liberal, I lean towards the latter, because it hinges more on the chilling of behavior inherent in a free press. However, if this would come before the Supremes, I feel they might rule otherwise. Either way, it's a close call.
Check out my Philosophical Question of the Day (PQD) Blog at http://pqd.negativespace.com. Answer a Question. Subscribe to the Alert. I may actually use this issue in an upcoming PQD.
http://pqd.negativespace.com
This is not a case where a reporter is protecting a source in order to prevent retaliation against the source...a whistleblower, for example. This is a case where the source committed an act of treason for political gain, and the reporter participated. In my opinion...they should both be jailed.
To me this question isn't about Miller and her source per se, but about the integrity of the relationship between a reporter and the source in general.
If she is forced to give up the name of her source, it's a blow, not only to her reputation, but the reputation of all reporters.
At that point the depth and quality of news and information we receive on a whole begins to decline. I, for one, want to know that when I watch the news or read the aper that I'm getting 'all' the facts, or as many of them as possible.
That's not to say I condone what Miller and her source did, I just believe that there's a bigger picture to be looked at.
A complicated question, one with no answer that isn't detrimental in one way or another...
Post a Comment
<< Home