Ch. 6 Confidentiality

Confidentiality in journalism can raise up a lot of issues. Journalists have a duty to keep their sources private if they wish, but what if that information is valuable to the public. Shouldn’t the public have a right to know where certain information is coming from? I feel that the public should have a right to know who sources are, but I also feel that sources should have the right to privacy if they are giving up valuable information which could be dangerous for them if they were revealed. I can understand both sides of the issue, but I don’t have an answer as to which would be the right choice. Reveal the source or not?

Justice Robert Stewart had a good idea about regarding confidential sources which I agree with. His three criteria were: 1) the information is “clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law.” 2) Information cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values. 3) There is a compelling and overriding need for the information (p.185). I think that a source should only be revealed if the information meets all three of these criteria. I would still like to know who the sources are for all stories, but I understand that a source has the right to stay private. Their privacy should not be violated unless it meets Stewart’s requirements. Even though all situations can vary, journalists should respect their sources and keep their confidentiality. When the information is of public concern and adheres to Stewart’s rules, then that should be the only time when a source should be revealed.