Under the First Amendment, keeping sources private is one of the most important factors of freedom of speech for journalists. It allows them to dig deep in their investigations and do their job without fear of backlash in court or being forced to testify with their knowledge. Under this part of Freedom of Speech, journalists can refuse to testify before a grand jury because news gathering is protected under the First Amendment. The freedom of the press and privacy of journalists goes to a case to case basis, because it is in the best interest of the country that when their is certain types of criminal activity, a journalists may need to testify in front of a grand jury.
The media plays a crucial role in our democracy, and without the protection of our journalists, there can be no media, thus putting limits on democracy. In some cases, if it is criminal, a judge will rule that a journalist must testify. An example of this is when a "New York Times reporter whose book is at the center of a criminal leak case against a former CIA officer accused of being one of his sources cannot invoke a reporter’s privilege and refuse to testify at the officer’s trial, a federal appeals court ruled Friday(Zapotosky)". The reporter, James Risen, was forced to testify against CIA officer, Jeffery Sterling. The court argued that their is no First Amendment protection for a journalist in a criminal case. This becomes a very fine line because Freedom of Press is something our country is founded on and relies on to keep our democracy in check. Judges will often decide if their is protection of anonymity depending on what serves the greater good of the people.
What is your opinion? Should all press be free and anonymous? Or should courts force some journalists to testify if they have information needed for criminal cases?
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of Speech in the United States. Strata Publishing, n.d.
Zapotosky, Matt. Federal appeals court: Journalists can’t decline to testify in criminal trials. n.d. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/federal-appeals-court-journalists-cant-decline-to-testify-in-criminal-trials/2013/07/19/6ddc8de4-f0a5-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html?utm_term=.aae55f225bf9>.
The media plays a crucial role in our democracy, and without the protection of our journalists, there can be no media, thus putting limits on democracy. In some cases, if it is criminal, a judge will rule that a journalist must testify. An example of this is when a "New York Times reporter whose book is at the center of a criminal leak case against a former CIA officer accused of being one of his sources cannot invoke a reporter’s privilege and refuse to testify at the officer’s trial, a federal appeals court ruled Friday(Zapotosky)". The reporter, James Risen, was forced to testify against CIA officer, Jeffery Sterling. The court argued that their is no First Amendment protection for a journalist in a criminal case. This becomes a very fine line because Freedom of Press is something our country is founded on and relies on to keep our democracy in check. Judges will often decide if their is protection of anonymity depending on what serves the greater good of the people.
What is your opinion? Should all press be free and anonymous? Or should courts force some journalists to testify if they have information needed for criminal cases?
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of Speech in the United States. Strata Publishing, n.d.
Zapotosky, Matt. Federal appeals court: Journalists can’t decline to testify in criminal trials. n.d. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/federal-appeals-court-journalists-cant-decline-to-testify-in-criminal-trials/2013/07/19/6ddc8de4-f0a5-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html?utm_term=.aae55f225bf9>.
Freedom of the press is crucial for American democracy to function the way it was meant to. In general, journalist should be able to publish accurate information from confidential sources without fear of being forced to testify. If journalist lack the ability to protect their sources, witnesses to crime or corruption will be more hesitant to come forward with information. A journalist’s job is to serve the public by investigate institutions, organizations, or people and exposing corruption or crime. Often, these journalists are served subpoenas regarding cases in which government information was exposed to the public. So, of course the government wants these journalists to testify in court, because they want to discover the leaker. Also, they argue the release of this information threatens national security and therefore should not be made public. However, despite the importance of national security, holding the government accountable for its actions also it. Government transparency should be common, but its not. If journalist cannot keep the identity of their sources private, then the government can prosecute those who reveal corrupt or questionable actions they took and make an example of them to the rest of their employers. As a result, individuals will be too fearful to divulge to journalists crimes or corruption taking place within the government and journalist cannot fulfill their duty to hold the government accountable.
ReplyDeleteDespite my belief in favor of journalist privileges, I understand that there are always exceptions. You mentioned how often decisions are made about whether or not a journalist has to reveal their sources on a case by case basis. Its true, every case is different. So, it can be argued that in certain circumstances, journalist should reveal their source or additional information the received. However, it should not be a common occurrence, otherwise journalist will not be trusted with classified information or information that exposes corruption or crime.
I think that this subject is very interesting and raises a lot of questions about other things that is protected by the first amendment. For example the rights of being able to protest is something that also has raised questions as well. We have the right to protest but only under certain circumstances with certain regulations. This is saying that there is a freedom of press but to an extent. The press should indeed have the protection to publish facts without fear of being punished for it. Having a confidential source is something that we see a lot in today's press and I think that if all of those had been controversial and had been someone of interest to our government then we would have something that basically take away the rights of freedom of press. I think that we would see a decline in publishing material with stuff like that and this would basically cause rights to be taken away by the government if it is something that interest them which I don't believe to be moral.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post definitely raises a lot of valid questions around freedom of press. In my opinion, I do think that journalism should be free, and if a journalist would like to keep themselves or their sources anonymous, that should be respected. I think this makes for better journalism any way. If people have to be afraid to tell anyone anything, the truth would most likely come out extremely seldom. The first amendment exists for a reason. Citizens deserve protection from things that they should not be afraid of. If every journalist feared being arrested for publishing facts, how would the journalism industry survive? On the flip side, if a journalist has incriminating evidence against a criminal that committed a serious crime, there should be requirement for the journalist to testify. If the difference between a journalist testifying or not, was a serial killer continuing to live in society, would it be okay for them not to testify? This is why freedom of press is such a pushing issue and is such a gray area.
ReplyDeleteI think your post brings up some interesting questions. I don’t think all press should be free and anonymous. I think there are instances when it would be important for a journalist to review their sources. Maybe in the case of a murder investigation or a case that interferes with national security. I do agree that media plays an important role in democracy and there should be a lot of protection of sources. However, I do think there needs to be limitations in some cases.
ReplyDeleteI think the freedom to cite anonymous sources without fear of government reprimands is a crucial element to a free press. I believe this notion is especially applicable to the current dynamic between news outlets and the Trump administration, as there have been multiple stories broken since his inauguration that have relied on anonymous sources. Trump and his associates have been heavily critical of these stories, with the president going so far as asserting they're entirely fabricated (on July 12th, he tweeted: "Remember, when you hear the words "sources say" from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist.").
ReplyDeleteTo use one example of a story relying on anonymous sources, the New York Times published a piece earlier this year on May 26th that alleged Jared Kushner, Trump's senior adviser, spoke with a Russian ambassador about establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump administration and Russia to discuss Syrian foreign policy. The White House neither confirmed nor denied the story, so it would appear there's at least some accuracy to the report. Making this information available to the public is important because it allows experts to debate the legality/ethical implications of collusion like this - something that wouldn't be possible without anonymous sources.
Sources:
Haberman, Maggie, et al. “Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/politics/kushner-talked-to-russian-envoy-about-creating-secret-channel-with-kremlin.html.
Trump, Donald J. (@realDonaldTrump) “Remember, When You Hear the Words ‘Sources Say’ from the Fake Media, Often Times Those Sources Are Made up and Do Not Exist.” July 12th, 2017. Tweet.