Unsettling Signs

I thought it was ironic that the episode of Law & Order that TNT chose to show on Tuesday dealt with both intentional election fraud and journalistic source protecting.

Both are big issues right now. Election fraud slightly less since the initial fervor after the election results has subsided, but the problem of suspecting election rigging will be around until we can have faith in our voting machines and their accuracy. (Or maybe the idea of election rigging is still around, considering DeLay's fixing of the Texas races...) Journalistic source protecting is important and while always a hot issue, it seems to be more on the forefront now than any time I can recently remember.

[Aside: Have my posts been getting more political? I blame the election.]

Yesterday (11/18), an investigative reporter from a Rhode Island TV station was convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to name the source that leaked to him an FBI videotape about government corruption. (Read the article here.)

It seems that lately a lot of journalists have had to worry about jail time for not revealing their sources. A lot of this has centered around the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity (which should have never been done). A Time Magazine correspondent was held in contempt over this, and "a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never published an article about Ms. Plame, has been held in contempt by a federal judge for refusing to name people she interviewed about the subject." (Yet the columnist to whom it was leaked has not been held in contempt?) Where does it end?

The convicted Rhode Island reporter, Jim Taricani, had this to say:

I wish all my sources could be on the record, but when people are afraid, a promise of confidentiality may be the only way to get the information to the public, and in some cases, to protect the well-being of the source. I made a promise to my source, which I intend to keep.

This is how journalism has always worked. Sources are confidential. Important information gets out to the public. Since when has government had the right to require reporters publishing dissenting viewpoints to reveal their sources? It's a slippery slope until we get to outright censorship of any viewpoint not supporting the administration (or dominant political parties).

Taking away the protection for journalistic sources takes away the incentive to do a good job, to reveal secrets and to publish important information in the public interest. Would you risk going to jail to get the truth out? I'm sure some people would, but I think a lot of people wouldn't want to take the risk if they knew about the potential punishment ex ante. There is a reason why 31 states have shield laws to protect journalists from this very danger.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where we wish we could find out a journalistic source to further other public interests. But taking away a protection like this, or endangering the personal freedom of journalists by rescinding this privilege, doesn't further the public interest in any way. All it does is restrict freedom of speech and the incentive to publish unpopular or dissenting or whistleblowing information. We shouldn't be sending journalists to jail when their refusal to reveal sources doesn't result in physical harm to anyone - what's the point?