If a reporter witnesses a murder perpetrated by...

[mikelewis]

a confidential source, are they under any ethical obligation to maintain the confidentiality of that source? Should the first amendment shield them from any legal backlash for failing to disclose this information?

What if the reporter was also involved in the murder? What if the reporter could have stopped the leak... I mean, murder from happening?

How is this scenario any different than the outing of Mrs. Plame? Wasn't that a crime not only witnessed by reporters but involved their active and willing participation? Now, their culpability in the case can be argued but how can any reporter even feign indignation over the jailing of Judith Miller? Mrs. Miller did not report the information leaked to her; this means either she did not find the information credible or she did not find it newsworthy. The other option is that she knew that revealing the name of a covert CIA operative or any secret information was illegal. If this is the case, and I suspect it is, Mrs. Miller deserves the jail sentence she is now serving.

I do believe the press should have the ability to utilize confidential sources for stories. I also believe that was the intent of the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, I do not believe the Framers intended to allow the Press to shield criminal acts they have witnessed or, in this case, actively participated in. What should the concequence be for the reporters who write the stories that reveal a crime but fail to identify the confidential suspect? I know that the average citizen would be charged as an accomplice after the fact at worse and obstructing justice at best, but does that or should that same standard apply to the Press?

[knowbody0]

1. you are spot on IMO

to know and not to reveal, and then know the carnage should have not happened, ................. how the fuck could you sleep? what would the motivation for silence be? the greater good needs to fit in here.

[iamjoy]

2. It Is A Sticky Wicket

All of your points are valid, but consider this:

If we make journalists reveal confidential sources by saying they are not entitled to the same priveledges as attorney/client or doctor/patient, etc...

Journalists often get good information and tips from confidential sources. If these sources know or believe that journalits will not respect or maintain the promise of anonymity, they will be less likely to share information.

Maybe this isn't the perfect example, but: imagine Watergate. Imagine if Mark Feldt knew that Woodward and Bernstein would probably reveal his name. Chances are he wouldn't have come forward. We never would have known about Watergate. Nixon, Liddy, etc would not been known as criminals.

Still think journalists shouldn't have any protection?

[InternalDialogue]

4. The original poster was pretty clear that:

I do believe the press should have the ability to utilize confidential sources for stories. I also believe that was the intent of the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, I do not believe the Framers intended to allow the Press to shield criminal acts they have witnessed or, in this case, actively participated in.

However, I think you've identified the crux of the issue regarding long-term viability of anonymous sources. It's critical for those concerned with a free press to examine and define the line between protecting a whistleblowing source or conscientious informer and journalists who (knowingly or unknowingly) are witnessing or participating in what would be criminal activity in that or any other situation.

[Ready4Change]

7. The difference is the criminality of the informant.

Mark Feldt, aka Deep throat, had committed no crime. Woodward and Bernstein, by reporting his leak, were committing no crime. They merely brought more attention to bear on people who DID commit crimes.

Novak, Miller, Cooper, and "the leaker(s)" were all involved in the actual commission of a crime.

Consider: A journalist gets a call from a terrorist providing information that proves that he was involved with a bombing. Should that source be protected? If so, how is that different from the Plame leakers?

[InternalDialogue]

8. I'm right there with you.

The difference is that Watergate's leaks exposed a crime. In Rove/Plame, the leak was the crime.

[mikelewis]

9. Ah, but Mr. Felt was exposing a crime not covering it up...

This is the difference... or is there a difference?

[Angry Girl]

3. nicely put

[iamjoy]

5. So Why Isn't Novak In Jail

And charged with treason? Not (as Ms. Miller is) contempt of court for refusing to comply with the judge's request, but actual treason since he outed Plame?

Please, no conspiracy theories about REPUGNANTcans protecting their own, legal facts if you have them.

[mikelewis]

10. That's my question... He was the leaker, he should be indicted.

Whay isn't he in jail?

[KansDem]

6. They could have stopped the leak, or they could have informed

the proper authorities. They chose not to. The "journalists" involved were probably only too happy to help the Bush Family and this was one way, even if it meant the deaths of over 100,000 people. I'm sure these "reporters" were looking forward to being invited to the next White House gala affair as a "thank you" for their complicity. They were so drunk on the prospect of being accepted by the Bushistas that they did not think about the consequences of their actions.

I hope they all rot in prison, then in Hell...