True, but the courts general only go after reporter's confidential sources as a last resort. This case is a political sham over a crime that never was.
But, there ought to be some protections for the press so that whistleblowers feel that they can get things out anonymously. The MSM sucks, but the press still has an important function in a democracy.
Lots of corruption would never come out otherwise.
It would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Another example might be this: A big city election worker calls Fox News with evidence of massive fraud. He doesn't want to lose his job, but he will send the evidence to Fox only he can remain anonymous.
But here's another example that shows the dangers that lurk behind the presumption that "whistleblowers" should have some kind of legal protection . . .
A "journalist" for CNN has no evidence of any kind of fraud, but concocts a story of "big-time fraud" with quotes from anonymous sources with ties to an elected official. Providing legal protection to sources makes it impossible to distinguish between legitimate and fictitious sources.
Someone who is called to testify in a civil or criminal court case has no choice but to testify, except in some very narrowly-defined cases (spousal protection, Fifth Amendment, and lawyer confidentiality). Anyone else is simply out of luck -- regardless of what kind of sanctimonious view they have of their profession.
What if, instead of Fox, he sends to a blogger. Say Stephan Sharkansky, the Seattle blogger who has played such a large role in revealing the corruption in King County elections.
By definition, Sharkansky is not a "journalist". And his blog is not "a part of the media". If special privileges and immunity is going to be allowed the journalism profession, the first question that should be asked is: What is a journalist?
Unlike doctors and lawyers, there is no special training nor any licensing required to call one's self a "journalist". Nor should there be. So, how does one go about giving "journalists" immunity from prosecution?
You know this is the third court ruling upholding the contempt citation...
Or maybe you don't. But it is.
That's unanimous rulings saying the reporters have to testify. Including by judges who concede there is a time and place to grant reporters exceptions.
But not in this case.
Sorry (not).