October 16, 2011
Imagine you are covering a major story in which information was leaked to the public.
The court then issues a court order for you to reveal what you knew about the
incident, including the identity or your sources. Would you give the court the
names or stay true to protecting your source’s identity? If you decided to
protect the identities, how far would you go to do so?
This exact 
situation happened to Judith Miller, who at the time was a reporter for The New
York Times. Miller was investigated after the identity of a CIA agent was announced
and was ordered by the court to reveal her sources. She refused to do so and
was citied with contempt of court. Miller tried to appeal her case to the
Supreme Court, but they refused and allowed for the lower appeals court
decision to stand. This left Miller’s fate in the judge’s hands as to whether
she would be sentenced to prison or not.
Miller continued to keep the identity of her source confidential causing
her to be sentenced to prison until she testified or the grand jury’s term
expired in October 2005. After spending 85 days in prison, Miller finally
testified and revealed the identity, but only after her source told her it was
ok to do so.
Miller kept the identity of her source a secret to protect
her source, as well as keep the free flow of information going. If sources were
concerned that their safety may be in jeopardy if they talk to reporters than
the news that we hear and read would be very different.
- Do you think that the 1st Amendment
provides some protection to journalist not wanting to disclose the identities
of their sources? - Should the court be able to put journalists in
jail for not providing the identities of their sources? - If you were in Judith Miller’s situation, what
would you have done? Why?
*Link to Miller v U.S. court case: http://www.jprof.com/law/inregjmiller21505opn.pdf
7 thoughts on “How far would you go to protect a source?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 17th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
1. I think that because the first amendment guarantees freedom of the press, and any logical person can see that the promise of confidentiality to sources is necessary for journalism to be effective, so in a roundabout way, yes the first amendment does protect journalist who want to protect the identity of their sources.
2. I do not think the court should be able to jail journalists for keeping their sources a secret. As it mentions in the book, medical professionals and lawyers have the right to keep what their clients/patients say confidential, and I think journalists should have the same rights. Confidentiality is essential to the effectiveness of their job, and their job is essential to democracy. Also, why can a person successfully sue a journalist for revealing their identity after promising not to, but the court can force a journalist to do the same. It seems to me these two court issues conflict.
3. If I were in Judith Miller’s situation I probably would have given up the source. Not because I don’t believe in keeping sources a secret, but in this case, pathetic people in the government were trying to use the press to punish people who openly disagreed with their insistence on the existence of WMD’s that led us into war. This was not a case of actual case cracking journalism where someone went out on a limb to right a wrong.
October 17th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I think in a way the First Amendment does protect journalists not wanting to reveal their sources which it should because if a source wants to remain anonymous then why can’t they? The First Amendment includes Freedom of the Press so a journalist should not have to reveal their sources.
Personally, I don’t think it is right for the courts to put journalists in jail for not revealing their sources. The whole point of off the record or anonymous is to not be named. As we talked about in class, this would create a chilling effect if all journalists had to name their sources. There wouldn’t be any anonymous sources anymore because no one would be willing to tell anything.
I have to say that if I was Judith Miller, I probably would have revealed my source but not right away. I would have let it drag out awhile and not revealed it but when it came to the point where they were going to put me in jail, I probably would reveal the source. In all honesty, I would be way too scared to go to jail. Even though the right thing to do is not reveal it, I don’t think I could.
October 18th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
I don’t think the First Amendment will ever be interpreted to allow reporters to protect confidential sources, but it should to some extent. You will get those stories that are so sensitive that no one will talk to you about it on the record. Those are the kinds of stories people want to read, do to the more controversial nature of them. As long as what you are protecting doesn’t involve some major national security aspect, which I guess could be argued in this case, seeing as it involved a covert CIA operative. Like, if you get an anonymous source talking about a terrorist attack, that shouldn’t be protected.
On the same note, journalists shouldn’t be put in jail for protecting sources, assuming they lawfully obtained information. If a government official is leaking classified information, obviously they have bigger issues than trying to put a journalist behind bars.
If I was Miller, I’d have done the same thing. If you rat on one confidential source, your journalism career is basically over … no one will ever trust you again. Plus, jail time could do wonders for your career. One of the reporters who was indicted in the BALCO case we talked about in class got a job at ESPN shortly after that settled down. Not a bad upgrade there.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I think the First Amendment does protect journalist that want to protect the identity of their sources. The First Amendment states Freedom of Press.
If journalist always released their source it would create a chilling effect. Journalist want to avoid chilling effect. I do not think journalist should be put in jail for not identifying their sources. If journalist revealed their sources, their sources would dry up. Protection of sources is critical. The idea of anonymous sources is not to be identified. If anonymous sources were identified no one would speak with journalist. If journalist always release their sources the police would become lazy and relay on the media to do their work.
If I were in Judith Miller’s shoes, I would have to say I would release the name of my source. At the beginning of the fuss, I would not but when jail time is brought up I would try to come to an agreement. If that did not work then I would release my sources name. I would be scared go to jail.
October 20th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I do think that the First Amendment does in a sense protect journalists from keeping their sources confidential. Freedom of the Press has several aspects of freedoms for journalists, especially keeping their sources confidential, if the source wants their identity anonymous.
I do not think that the court should put journalists in jail, if they are being loyal to their source. The only way I can agree with allowing jail time in a confidential source case, is if it harms national security. If journalists told the names of their sources, if their names are off the record or anonymous, it would create a chilling effect.
If I was Judith Miller, I would not reveal my source right away because I would want to keep my word to the source. However, I would not drag it out as long as she did, especially being in jail for 85 days. I would try to talk to my source as soon as possible, so they would let me reveal it sooner than later.
October 21st, 2011 at 1:06 am
1. I absolutely think that it should, and I think the court should have to define “the press” if they disagree. Freedom of the press, to me, includes everything that goes into the process of putting a story in print. Part of that is protecting sources in order to access information from them. Without that protection the press may not be able to function in the proper way.
2. No, for the reason I listed above.
3. I would like to think that I would do the same thing that Judith Miller did, because it is important to take a stand for what you believe in. But I have a family that depends on me being around, so I don’t know if I could actually chose to go to jail. It would definately be a tough situation to be in.
October 21st, 2011 at 11:19 am
I think that freedom of the press should cover reporters who don’t wish to disclose their source’s identity because if the reporter hadn’t agreed to the source’s wishes of being anonymous in the first place, then the story might not have been written. The court shouldn’t be allowed to put journalists in jail unless the knowing the source could potentially change the outcome of the case or cause harm to one of the sides in the case. I believe in staying true to my words. Therefore, if I was in Judith Miller’s case, I would’ve done the exact same thing because I would’ve needed to stay true to my source if he/she didn’t want their name revealed.