Protection a journalist's sources: is it an absolute?

[LaCroix]

I don't think that makes the cut at all.  An unnamed source told me Obama is a Kenyan citizen.  So what?

I think the balancing act has to involve compelling state interests such as national security or evidence of an underlying crime.

newsroom came to mind. major news channel releases a story about something that appears somewhat plausible, cites major source within U.S. intelligence. turns out to be complete bunk.

that's what i mean - an example of a national security issue or evidence of underlying crime. my first reaction = blanket protection. but before i commit, i need to know a specific, extreme example.

It would be more like Journalist source says they witnessed x where x is the commission of a criminal offence.

why would the source need to be discovered? in that scenario, investigators can check it out... if there's nothing, there's nothing. i think there's an equal, if not greater, importance of protecting journalist-source confidentiality than there is re: attorneys, priests, doctors, etc. actually, i could see a scenario where the source says "i'm gonna kill X tomorrow." there, yeah, so maybe a blanket protection except for that scenario.

[crazy canuck]

It would be more like Journalist source says they witnessed x where x is the commission of a criminal offence.

why would the source need to be discovered? in that scenario, investigators can check it out... if there's nothing, there's nothing.

How would investigators be able to check it out if they are not able to interview the source? 

[LaCroix]

How would investigators be able to check it out if they are not able to interview the source?

if a crime occurred, investigators can investigate the crime. not knowing who the source is doesn't mean they can't investigate the crime itself and figure it out on their own. why not just require priests to reveal confessions in that case, or attorneys. crime really isn't a big enough reason.

journalist-source confidentiality leads to greater openness and more spread of information. you'd have more leaks, which i think is a good thing. news companies/journalists would still have discretion.

[Martinus]

The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).

[viper37]

The people of Languish already know the score with Muslim extremists being investigated for planning to bomb airplanes.

I don't think so, the Canadian politics thread of the last campaign seems to have proven that it's not the case.

But wading through all that nonsense, legally the solicitors have already answered that in Canada/U.S. it's certainly not absolute that a journalist gets confidentiality protection recognized by the courts. And further, it's entirely proper for the police to follow people they believe will give them leads. Only when the police need to violate property, privacy or other established rights to continue their investigation does it even warrant concern at all. In those cases, that is what the warrant system is for, but just tailing a journalist, seeing who he speaks with in public, and trying to generally ferret out information--that's what police do, and they're allowed to do it to people that may not be targets of investigation but are only likely to perhaps give information about such a target, and when the investigation involves tailing them in public places and observing their activities it's not a constitutional/rights concern and doesn't even require a warrant. Journalists aren't super-citizens who are immune from being observed by police.

I will say I do think journalists have a double standard when the cameras are turned to them. It's looking like Sarah Koenig is going to do the next season of the podcast Serial about Bowe Bergdahl, but Serial was so popular that Sarah Koenig is now somewhat of a celebrity in addition to being a journalist. So other journalists were following her around and reporting on the fact that she's been seen observing some of Bergdahl's hearings and such. Her response? To get kinda pissy and say they need to respect her trying to do her job.

This is the response almost all "non-journalists" who find themselves suddenly under public scrutiny want to say to journalists sticking cameras in their face, and some of them do say it, but journalists will (permissibly) ignore those protests. It's just funny to see it happen to one of them and see them react the same way. Journalists don't get to go "waaah I'm not the story!", the public decides what they're interested in and journalists get to report on it, and if that means the camera shines on people who "don't want to be the story", even other journalists, then tough shit.

I tend to agree with that vision.  I think it's ok for a journalist to protect its sources, but certainly, the authorities should be allowed to discover them, especially if they are accused of being the leak or if there is truth that publication of a story compromised an investigation.

[viper37]

The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).

Well, I asked, because it ain't clear-cut, it's not black&white.

If a journalist does not protect his/her sources, there is no difference between a journalist and law enforcement.

Imagine the case of a kidnapping.  An ex convict on probation has information on the subject but he wasn't supposed to be where he was and if he talks to the police, he's going back to jail.  Talking to a journalist maybe a way to help solve the crime without endangering his freedom.

Imagine a case of government corruption.  Will the government ever allow its employees to testify openly? Of course not.  We saw it the last time the Liberals were in power, there was a frantic search for the government source that revealed the Sponsorship scandal.  Not that it matters now, with the same people in power, again.

[Tonitrus]

The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).

Well, I asked, because it ain't clear-cut, it's not black&white.

If a journalist does not protect his/her sources, there is no difference between a journalist and law enforcement.

Imagine the case of a kidnapping.  An ex convict on probation has information on the subject but he wasn't supposed to be where he was and if he talks to the police, he's going back to jail.  Talking to a journalist maybe a way to help solve the crime without endangering his freedom.

Imagine a case of government corruption.  Will the government ever allow its employees to testify openly? Of course not.  We saw it the last time the Liberals were in power, there was a frantic search for the government source that revealed the Sponsorship scandal.  Not that it matters now, with the same people in power, again.

Hmmm...in those two examples, could those persons technically consult an attorney...who would then be able to reveal the important information on their behalf, while keeping their client/source anonymous...or does their privilege only protect the information itself, and not the source?  (I suppose the danger there is whistleblowing and crime-committing lawyers saying "I didn't commit the crime/leak the info...my anonymous client did!")

[crazy canuck]

How would investigators be able to check it out if they are not able to interview the source?

if a crime occurred, investigators can investigate the crime. not knowing who the source is doesn't mean they can't investigate the crime itself and figure it out on their own. why not just require priests to reveal confessions in that case, or attorneys. crime really isn't a big enough reason.

journalist-source confidentiality leads to greater openness and more spread of information. you'd have more leaks, which i think is a good thing. news companies/journalists would still have discretion.

But that is the point, if a journalist has been told by a source that the source is an eye witness to the crime, why shouldn't the policy be able to obtain evidence directly from the source?

[Admiral Yi]

Veep: at least in the US there are anonymous tip phone lines that take care of the issues you mentioned.

[crazy canuck]

Veep: at least in the US there are anonymous tip phone lines that take care of the issues you mentioned.

Yeah, we have them too.  Going through a journalist would definitely not be the way to go if one wanted to report things anonymously.

[alfred russel]

The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).

I think that is a good point. Not only is a journalist tough to define, but the role of a traditional journalist is far less important. For example, today everyone with internet access is capable of getting information to the general public. If I had conclusive evidence that Barack Obama was having affairs with a sequence of really young interns, and I posted it on a site as obscure as this one, in a couple of days that information would be out in the general public. Back in the day, whether that became known to the general public would be dependent on not just the press discovering it, but also them reporting it (see JFK).

[LaCroix]

The main problem I have with the protection of journalist's sources is that the status of a journalist becomes extremely ambiguous, especially in this day and age. Most of the other cases where confidentiality is protected from scrutiny of law enforcement forces (such as you have with lawyers or doctors) applies to highly regulated professions and environments, where it is relatively easy to say that someone fits or does not fit the bill (and still there are grey areas, nonetheless).

yup, agreed. there would have to be tighter restrictions on who gets classified as a "journalist" vs. blogger, etc.

[Admiral Yi]

yup, agreed. there would have to be tighter restrictions on who gets classified as a "journalist" vs. blogger, etc.

The more reasonable alternative is to give everyone "journalistic privilege."

[LaCroix]

The more reasonable alternative is to give everyone "journalistic privilege."

blanket protection for journalists doesn't exist, and i'm asking why not given the potential benefits. but for blanket protection to have any merit, it has to conform to reality.  marti's point is valid. there are lots of different types of journalists, and many are hardly professionals, so, only "professional" journalists should receive a blanket protection re: sources.

[Admiral Yi]

blanket protection for journalists doesn't exist, and i'm asking why not given the potential benefits. but for blanket protection to have any merit, it has to conform to reality.  marti's point is valid. there are lots of different types of journalists, and many are hardly professionals, so, only "professional" journalists should receive a blanket protection re: sources.

Tell me what are the advantages of having "journalists" enjoy a privacy privilege that the rest of us don't.