The idea that journalistic sources should be protected by confidentiality is absurd.
An online petition launched two weeks ago to gather support for reporters facing federal pressure to reveal confidential sources has garnered nearly 3,000 electronic signatures from working journalists, according to organizers. They hope to collect 10,000 names and use them in a major newspaper ad campaign. ...At issue is whether or not courts should have the power to force journalists to reveal their "confidential" sources during the course of a criminal investigation. The journalists here are attempting to create a type of legal privilege akin to the well-known attorney-client, doctor-patient, and husband-wife privileges that allow one person to refuse to testify about anything they know or learned as a result of the relationship.At the top of the petition, organizers placed a statement that says, in part, "We support the reporters in current federal court proceedings who are refusing to testify about their confidential sources and now face stiff fines, even jail. We commend these reporters for standing firm and standing up for First Amendment principles."
There are all sorts of compelling reasons for these privileges to exist that don't come into play with journalists and their sources, but I'll leave that analysis to people who know more about the history than I do. The critical issue here, however, is that there's no way to determine when a hypothetical "journalistic privilege" should be applied. When it comes to lawyers and client, for instance, the scope of the relationship is clear and well-defined. It begins and ends with a contract and relates to specific isses. But all journalists do is listen to people, so essentially anything anyone ever tells a journalist would be protected by privilege and journalists could never be forced to testify about anything.
And then there's the question of who exactly gets to be a journalist. Can I be a journalist because of this blog? Do I have to work for a major newspaper? Or a TV station? Can I print up pamphlets in my basement and be counted as a journalist? If so, then everyone is a journalist; if not, then who gets to be in charge of deciding eligability, and using what criteria? The idea of a "journalistic privilege" is absurd on its face, because anyone ever called to testify could simply claim to be a journalist and refuse.
The distributors of this petition claim that such privilege falls under the First Amendment, but the text makes no distinction between "journalists" and ordinary people. People who work for news organizations have no more and no less freedom of speech than everyone else does -- we're all protected equally by the First Amendment. No one is entitled to special protection or special freedom because of the identity of their employer.
I agree, journalists who claim a privilege are weenies. Trying to make it into a First Amendment issue is downright insulting. To borrow one of Say Uncle's favorite lines, it's about making journalists "like you and me, only better."
Time to start a counter-petition urging the government to make journalists obey the same rules as everyone else.
Why should anyone be compelled to testify anything? Isn't that the purpose of the Fifth Ammendment? Why do journalists need additional protection?
Jay: The 5th prevents the government from compelling someone to testify himself, but has nothing to do with compelling testimony in general.
I thought the 5th amendment only protected an individual from testifying against himself, at the risk of self-persecution? If someone is called to the stand and asked a question, they are compelled by perjery laws to answer it if it is non-incriminatory.
But as for journalists, knowing that they are protected by law is the only thing giving a lot of people enough courage to come forward and tell their stories - stories that would get them in trouble, fired, or even killed if their identities were revealed in court or otherwise.
I do agree that a definition of "journalist" would be vastly helpful. Otherwise, as you say, I could claim to be a journalist and refuse to reveal my "source" - even though all I do is run a blog.
Barry: No, you miss my point entirely! I don't think a legal definition of "journalist" would be a good idea, because as I explained I don't think any person should have any more freedom to speak than any other! "All you do is run a blog" -- but that's journalism! The only difference between you and the NYT is that more people read them than you (and you may hopefully be far more accurate).