Protecting Confidential Sources- A Panel Discussion

News is to inform the public. Often this means digging a little deeper and uncovering often un-flattering truths. Illegal business deals, corruptible politicians, and unscrupulous practices by any number of people are things good reporting can uncover. To disclose such things can often lead to legal proceeding and lawyers and judges alike would love to know why and by whom such facts were discovered.

A journalist to gain access to such info will usually be by someone closely related to the problem. These sources at times are promised in exchange for the information anonymity.

Currently a law to protect the journalist and their anonym’s sources does not exist on a national level. Due to this fact often journalists will be summoned to court to disclose names and information, and face jail time if they don’t comply. One person who has faced this possibility was RonNell Anderson, a speaker at tonight’s discussion. Helping her fight off the legal issues and keep her source confidential was journalist turned lawyer Jeffrey J Hunt, who was also present for the discussion. The third speaker in attendance was M. Dayle Jeffs who was a part of a Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee that helped put into law Rule 509 which gave the state of Utah a long awaited shield law to protect journalists and their sources.
Hunt and Jeffs covered the issue in the context of state laws. Each state is left to make their own laws concerning the issue and Utah was one of the last to create their own. Many factors helped make this a reality such as increased media attention and a general consensus amongst local media groups to push for and support the formation of such a law.

Anderson on the other hand focused on the issue on the national level. This issue and the problems which confidential sources can cause is a recurring debate and has been discussed on capital hill and in national courts. Each time it happens the same arguments are raised. Anderson said these arguments revolve back to the argument that the small number of confidentiality problems does not justify legal intervention on a national level. Anderson, who has helped collect data that says otherwise, disagrees with this conclusion.

For me the most interesting question this issue raises is the question of what constitutes a journalist. I was surprised to hear many journalists adamantly oppose such laws. These journalists say that one, claiming protection under the first amendment is sufficient, and two, arguing such laws could be a slippery slope leading into a government regulated news media. These fears perhaps stem from the necessity of the law to define what constitutes a journalist, and in today’s world of online bloging and other online news groups the definition continues to broaden.

It is my hope that if I continue in the pursuit to become a journalist in what ever context that ends up being that there will be at that time laws to protect myself and others in their endeavors to educate and inform about things that may otherwise go un-heard.