I hate to assume that the current First Amendment firestorm is all politics, but the Rove revelation has me wondering. I believe that confidential sources are important in a free press, etc, etc, but the more I think about it (and, unfortunately, the more we know), the more I begin to agree with this editorial:
Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate scope of journalistic privilege. But we should keep the legal question distinct from the ethical question: Is a journalist ever ethically permitted to break a promise and divulge a source? However we answer the legal question, the answer to the ethical must be a resounding yes.
Should Miller have refused to offer anonymity to all those “high-level†sources who sold us a bill of goods on Iraq? Yes.
If it becomes apparent to a journalist that a source lied to him on a matter crucial to the public good, should he be ethically permitted to expose the lie and the liar, despite any previous promises of confidentiality? Yes.
If a source with a clear political motivation passes along classified information that has no value for public debate but would endanger the career, and possibly the life, of a covert agent, is a journalist ethically permitted to “out†the no-good sneak? You bet. And if the knowledge that they can’t always hide behind anonymity has a “chilling effect†on political hacks eager to manipulate the media in furtherance of their vested interests, that’s OK with me.
As an aside, one article I read this morning stated that author was no fan of journalistic shield laws, because what happens if they’re repealed? Have we then conceded that the Constitution doesn’t protect journalists?
I’m not swayed by this editorial, which fails to recognize that many important news stories that have benefited public good would never have come to light without the use of anonymous sources (Watergate, anyone?). Often attorneys, physicians and priests — whose communications with clients, patients and penitents actually are legally protected — must make a decision about whether to reveal privileged information that could serve the public good. But the point is that it’s their decision to make. Similarly, it should be at the discretion of reporters (not prosecutors or the courts) to determine both the validity and value of information provided by sources “with a clear political motivation†and whether revealing the identity of the sources would serve the public good. In the end, the reporters will have to deal with the fallout from such revelations. Do you really believe that other sources in the future would trust Miller to protect their anonymity if she revealed the names of the sources in this case? It’s career suicide. Bottom line — you can debate whether or not Miller’s silence is ethical, but either way she shouldn’t be in jail.
I agree with DC to an extent…
But on a separate note, the excessive use of anonymous sourcing does often lead to bad journalism.
That’s true. Jack Shafer at Slate has done a series of interesting pieces on that issue. But I think that’s separate from the issue of whether the state should have the ability to compel reporters to reveal their sources.
This case feels a bit different to me because the leaker was not a whistleblower, and the leak itself was the crime.
I guess what I agree with, more than anything else in the editorial, is that the legal and ethical questions should be separate. But it’s a tough issue.