Lawyers: Are reporters legally obligated to keep confidential sources confidential?

[magellan01]

The title pretty much sums it up. If a reporter obtains confidential information from someone and then reveals the source, and that source suffers some ramification, whether, legal, professional, or monetary, can the reporter be held responsible?

I know this may arguably belong in GQ, but I hope/expect a debate.

My opinion is that they should be held responsible. If for no other reason than they seek protection under shield laws. But I’d be of that opinion regardless. If someone seeks to gain something (a story, and a reputation) by asking you to confide in him confidentially, and he breaks that agreement, I think he should be held fully responsible.

[BrainGlutton]

Shield laws generally shield the reporter from being forced by a court to reveal a source. However:

Sometimes, the press is not even immune from its sources;that occurs when it is the source who wishes to remain anonymous and the journalist who wishes to disclose it. Such was the case in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991). The Supreme Court upheld that a source may have a right to confidentiality if an agreement was made with the reporter. Unfortunately, the bigger issue of source disclosure gets even more confusing, since the Cohen and Branzburg decisions could allow for the possibility of a journalist being subpoenaed by a court to disclose the name of a source, and being sued by a source under promissory estoppel laws for that disclosure. The current laws of the land, and the gray areas of forecasting potential consequences of publishing a story with confidential sources places the press in a very precarious situation. The current shield laws in some states give the press somewhat of an upper hand, however, since federal law does not recognize reportorial privilege in most cases, it is understandable how the press might feel muzzled.

Cohen v. Cowles Media Company: Cohen, outed as a reporter’s source despite promises his identity would be kept confidential, lost his job, sued Cowles Media, and was awarded $200,000. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the verdict on appeal.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

Shield laws generally shield the reporter from being forced by a court to reveal a source. However:

Cohen v. Cowles Media Company: Cohen, outed as a reporter’s source despite promises his identity would be kept confidential, lost his job, sued Cowles Media, and was awarded $200,000. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the verdict on appeal.

My reaction is consistent with the Court’s in the Cohen case you offer – even if there’s no breach of contract, there would surely be some estoppel by reliance theory to hold a paper to its promise. It it violates it, then it can be sued. Makes perfect sense to me.

[magellan01]

@Bricker

My reaction is consistent with the Court’s in the Cohen case you offer – even if there’s no breach of contract, there would surely be some estoppel by reliance theory to hold a paper to its promise. It it violates it, then it can be sued. Makes perfect sense to me.

Bricker, could you explain this, particularly “reliance theory”, in more lay terms. And does it matter in your mind if this is for a newspaper, a magazine, or a journalist (magazine) writing a book?

Thanks. You, too,** BrainGlutton.**