| Page 2 of 3 < > |
Reporters and Their Sources in a Maelstrom
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
This relationship between a reporter and a source must be protected at all costs. The Constitution obviously says so.
But exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative, undercover police officer or similar individual is a crime that puts him or her in danger and endangers other people who are involved in the undercover operation.
It is inexplicable, therefore, that these reporters and their attorneys could field a defense of freedom of the press and protecting the confidentiality of a source.
MARTHA HULLINGER
Fairfax
ยท
The fact that a number of states have "shield laws" protecting reporters is not relevant to the question of whether there should be such a law applying to the federal judiciary [editorial, July 1]. States do not face all the sorts of issues that come before federal grand juries and courts, including issues of national security, spying, etc.
In such circumstances the issue is which rights should have primacy -- the right of a reporter to shield sources or the right of the public through the courts to compel essential testimony.
Each case is unique, but reporters' rights are not and should never be allowed to become absolute because the consequences for a free press would be adverse.
R.E. CONDON
