That is really hard to say. I studied to be a reporter for a short while so I can understand how it would impact the ability to get reliable sources.
Also, I can understand the other point of view. It may sometimes be necessary for a reporter to give up their source the help solve a case. So I'm gonna go w/ it there is a court order than they should give it up.
I can see multiple points of view here. First you have freedom of the press which has been defended 'til the hilt. And it continues today. What would we be without it? Second, I can see doing it if it would help a conviction in some major investigation or national security. But in the same sense, you lose trust and the sources. People mainly become an anonymous source becuase they fear punishment or retribution on them or their families. I don't think that anyone, even the high court, has the right to deny your rights as an American. By forcing the reporters to turn over sources that is exactly what you are doing.
Simply put - it should be a choice by a reporter with consent from the source. In no way should it be forced. If the source says no, then forget it.
I believe this has turned into so much more then it would have been because someone hates Bush and it going after him and his staff anyway they can. Undercover police officers and military personnel are exposed all the time, but no one goes after the drug dealer that rated them out - for that reason anyway.
__________________
Stop trying to be what you see. Be what you ought to be.
I think the problem is that with the constant media coverage you couldn't kind of do a backroom hand over of the information, which would serve to provide the information while still protecting the journalist.
Since it's going to be right out there, if the case is high profile enough the reporter could effectively be ending his or her career.
I mean let's say these two reporters give up their source. Now the next time there's a dirty mayor at city hall, or something to that effect, the average city worker that MIGHT have been a whistle blower is probably NOT going to say anything because they know they could eventually be forced out.
And of course you can't just say the sources should not reveal their name, because that opens the door to people making false claims about anyone they don't like and sends reporters and potentially law enforement on wild goose chases.
I think that this may be one of those situations where you have to take the occassional bad result and weigh it against the overall good.
I am not a huge fan of the press and I rarely read newspapers anymore. When I lived in Utah my wife and I were co-owners of a Waterpark, hotel and golf course called 7 Peaks. The state of Utah, through the insurance comminsioner--long story short took it all away in a hostile takeover. The insurance commissioner was since fired. We were forced to try to save it through a chapter 11--we failed miserably becasue we were up against the state.
The press--Salt Lake Tribune and Provo Daily Herald printed stories that were outright lies. I could not believe that such untruths were being printed. Had I not been on the inside knowing the truth and sitting in the courtroom, well, I just shake my head.
What baffled me most was the religious convitions that these people heralded, yet because of greed could lie so easily.
Normally, I would not agree to this, but when reporters cause a public frenzy with death and destruction the story must absolutely be verified as the truth. If they can not prove their story, then they must be held accountable. Or the person telling the story to the reporters should be responsible.
Journalists have a heavy responsibility to report the truth and not just juicy gossip. If the story is true, they should be exonerated. If the story is false, they should be punished.
Reporters must be able to protect their source or the ability to investigate any story will be jeopadized. It's a fine line but the source must feel secure in the fact that the information will not lead to their exposure. The reporter must feel secure the information is correct. The fact that the information could be damaging should make the reporter verify the claims made before ever writing the story. If not, the reporters credibility will be destroyed and may lead to the reporters terminaltion.
The editor and publication also share in the responsibilty of printing a story with correct information. I would hope those facts are verified by them.
Although in this case the person involved could have been in harms way and may have lost her life. It's very touchy and a tough call. This is a case where something good caused something bad in naming a spy.
The majority benefits from such investigations, for the most part, without sources willing to "blow the whistle" knowing they would be protected there would be scandals that would never come to light.
I think we are all pretty much of the same mind on this one. The media has become a force that I don't think they even envisioned, and that has brought around more responsability. The internet, cell phones, satellites, they cause information to move so fast that a story can become the cause of news as much as its outlet. With that in mind, I do believe that there are cases when a source will need to be revealed. A situation may become bigger than anyone expected and that information may be critical to getting control of the situation. If the greater good is at stake, then the source should be revealed.
Trust is something that once lost is very hard to regain. I believe the media, either print or tv, is at an interesting crossraods. They may never have been more powerful or more distrusted.
Dan Rather fabricating memo's and the New York Times completely making the news fictional tend to be forgotten because of the deluge of information we are subjected to and the number of sources we have available to us.
Source confidentiality is important in theory but once the news abandons the truth to advocate a certain bias, they harm not only someone's reputation but their own credibility. Sources speaking under condition of anonymity can be protected and still verified. But it isnt a perfect world.
A bit off the subject. Imagine that here. Good point about the deluge of media sources. This week I received two emails that were passed on misinformation. I hate that. I looked up both items at snopes.com and emailed the hoax information to them. One guy still thinks there is something to it or it would be sent all over. I should have told him it's guys like you that keep this cyber-trash in circulation.
