WH Leak Question- If journalists never named agent, is leaker a source?

[stlsaxman]

If I were a journalist who was given sensitive information in the hopes that
it would be published but my editors and I decided against running the story,
as we knew that to do so would be a felony, would identifying the source be a
breach of "journalistic ethics" or assisting in bringing a "criminal" to justice?

*shwew*

Are those six journalists that were leaked her name and position by a "senior
White House official" acting correctly by not revealing their "souce" or are they
in fact now accomplices to the crime by their silence?

Looking for caveats here...

[wryter2000]

1. Don't know the answer

But I have another question...if one or more of those journalists were to call another journalist to spill the beans, would they then be "sources" to the new journalist?

The way I figure it, anyway, the "top administration official" who spilled the story to the Washington Post is pissed. And I don't think he's going away.

[readmylips]

2. Looking at Novakula this morning on TV, his smirk is gone....

I've heard many real journalists talk against Novakula's ethics. He's a traitor.

[SimpleMan]

3. I'm no attorney, but...

It seems to me that Novak protecting the leaker makes him a co-conspirator. The leaker is the criminal here. He is not leaking about a crime...he is committing the crime.

[stlsaxman]

4. that is my impression, and-

should Andrea Mitchell (the only other named member of that press that is
known to be called) wait to be indited or come out and write an expose' on the leaker?

[Junkdrawer]

5. I see two questions there:

1.) If the journalist never prints a story, do they still have 1st Amendment protection in not revealing the source? - Don't know, and I remember stories where judges put reporters in jail under some circumstances for not revealing a source.

2.) In the world of Washington journalism, will a journalist reveal a source even if they never printed a story? - Here is seems to be clear that they won't in order to continue to receive leaks.

[stlsaxman]

6. Right-

and in reference to #2- if an investigation has them named as witnesses would
it make sence for them to out the leaker?

and re #1- Novaks ass is covered by the 1st Ammendment because he wrote a story.

[dsc]

7. a couple of things

First, to be clear Novack is specificly not covered by the law. The journalist can be subpeonaed to give up the source (the AG has to personally approve). Novack, and no other journalist, can be charged in cases like this.

Second, I have no idea what the answer to your question is. My assumption, though that is all it is, is that the priviledge would still apply.