So far, as stated in the Society for Professional Journalists, 45 states have protection for reporters' confidential sources either through statute or through appellate court decisions.
Just recently Massachusetts ex-Senate President, Robert E. Travaglini, filed a bill that would create a shield law in that state.
One such example that has prompted this movement was of Judith Miller and Time Magazine's Matt Cooper, both of whom risked imprisonment after a story came out regarding the leaked identity of CIA agent, Valerie Plame.
Although previous efforts for such legislation have been quelled, news papers and other media networks across the country are in strong support for change.
One such medium is the Boston Globe. In December they posted an article citing the issues with such a bill, but thought it a necessity for reporters.
Although the bill could pose problems with the justice system, as litigants have every right to a person's evidence, one should be able to report news without the suppression of possible endictment.
Another example in which anonymous sources were of great use was during the Watergate scandal.
It is the media's job to be a watch dog within society, and it is in my opinion, that credibility often comes from those sources least willing to reveal their own identities publicly.
It is the job of the journalist to provide information that is most pertinent and most important to the public, and by restricting the rights of those who seek to do this, we are not fulfilling the needs and necessities required within our society.
"It is ethical to use anonymous sources when the information is of indispensable importance to the public interest and it cannot be obtained by any other mean, " said Don Wycliff, a former public editor at the Chicago Tribune.
One should publish the truth with or without names.
No comments:
Post a Comment