[La Lydia]

Two things: The primary argument for a reporter’s right to keep confidential sources is the ‘chill factor’ that the exposure of sources creates. The chill effect is comprised of two parts; reporters and publishers are hesitant and restrained in their reporting, and, secondly, potential sources are be deterred by the lack of a promise of confidentiality, and, therefore, the media’s ability to gather news is crippled. Confidential sources are imperative to news-gathering.

The basis for this: James Madison -- "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

[Mr_Moonlight]

The primary argument for a reporter’s right to keep confidential sources is the ‘chill factor’ that the exposure of sources creates. The chill effect is comprised of two parts; reporters and publishers are hesitant and restrained in their reporting, and, secondly, potential sources are deterred by the lack of a promise of confidentiality, and, therefore, the media’s ability to gather news is crippled. Confidential sources are imperative to news-gathering.

Yes, Yes, and again Yes ... good points all. This is called 'checks and balances' in the journalistic world as well as the political world. Albeit, this is what keeps the human ego's lust for power in check ... our Founders understood this, and is why we have the First Amendment.

However, I take issue with your assertion that if a source doesn't want to talk, then somehow "the media’s ability to gather news is crippled". Huh? Is the "media" now a victim here, the media are 'crippled' because a source won't say anything? Maybe, just maybe, the so-called 'source' just doesn't have anything to say, maybe the 'source' is a hermit and doesn't generally talk to people openly, and just maybe the 'media' is infringing on the privacy of this 'source' .. maybe the 'source' isn't even really a 'source' at all. Who are all those "unnamed sources" that the New York Times and its ilk banties around whenever they got some blockbuster story that makes someone look bad (usually Republicans)?

We're not talking Court orders or Subpeona's here, were talking media (ie: Reporters) .. who have no more special rights than anyone else in regards to the First Amendment. Period.

And we've seen over the years how an out of control media have gone and wrecked the lives of normal decent people with their self-serving ego driven agenda. Nuff Said.

Cheers,
MM

[DBrow]

“Confidential sources are imperative to news-gathering.” And criminal enterprise.

“The primary argument for a reporter’s right to keep confidential sources...”

This is a right I’m not aware of. Who is eligible to exercise that right, and how do I identify such people? What rules are these people working to and who wrote them?

In other words, if I come across someone using the right to keep silent while in full knowledge of a felony, what test do I apply to see if the person is authorized to use the right to keep confidential sources? And who authorizes?