I’m certain I posted on this threa, but perhaps my post didn’t ‘stick’.
Fallen Angel
I’m not very aware of US Constitutional issues, but I gather you are referring to the right of freedom of expression. This isn’t really specific to the press, though, isn’t it?
You also refer to the role of the press as a “watchdog”. This can’t be right. The press doesn’t have a constitutional role as a ombudsman. It might act like that sometimes, but the press is motivated by commercial profit, not a legal right to keep an eye on government.
The press’ power came about by circulation. A lot of people read what it publishes, and are exposed to its opinion. That unique characteristic is no longer so unique, thanks to the medium you and I are currently using. Suppose a source gave me a story and I broke it on my website. If a journalistic privilege existed, would I be able to claim it? What makes the difference between someone with a website and someone with a newspaper?
“Press” is specifically mentioned, so the claim that it has special recognition in the Constitution does have some merit. I think that the Founders did in fact envision the press as having a watchdog role, and saw this amendment as securing that position.
"Absolutely no relevant information? No. Of course not. However, when one considers the very slight amount of relevant information that gets reported at present, in large part because many reporters are either lazy or corrupted by their sense of being part of the system they’re covering, the level of relevant information would drastically decrease.
If one looks at the reasonably few stories that get published that are of potential embarrassment to government agencies/officials or large businesses, one will almost invariably see at least one unattributed source, often more. Without the understanding of confidentiality, it’s far less likely those people would be talking to reporters.
Look, if you feel you have an obligation to keep your source’s secrets, then fine. But you cannot violate the law to get information for your story. You can’t break and enter, you can’t violate copyright, you can’t murder, bribe or extort. You can’t go out and sell drugs in order to write stories about drug dealers.
By keeping John Gotti’s secrets you are part of the code of Omerta that protects organized crime. You are a criminal and deserve to be thrown in jail for helping Gotti commit crimes. Now you may feel that there are more important things than putting criminals in jail, and sometimes laws must be broken for the higher good, and I agree. But that doesn’t and shouldn’t make you immune from prosecution for the commision of crimes in the name of the greater good.
Your argument is kind of along two separate tracks. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one that I will try to state as clearly as possible. I’ll apologize in advance for any lack of clarity that may creep into this.
You are right that as a reporter, I can’t break into the sheriff’s office and rifle files for information. I can’t “go undercover” and commit crimes for a story on criminal culture, etc.
However, if someone else has done these things, and I don’t have any part in the activity itself I should not have to report their activities to the police or testify against that person under subpoena if that person informed me of these events under the promise of confidentiality.
Not disclosing Gotti’s confidentially-stated activities is not the same as witnessing or participating in those activities. For all the reporter in this hypothetical knows, Gotti could just be bragging or lying outright. The reporter has a separate but equal duty to verify the information he or she is given under confidentiality before using it in a story.
The media are not part of the government. They are most certainly not part of the executive branch, charged with apprehending criminals. Their sole duty is to inform the public without taking direct action in violation of the law (b&e, extortion, etc.)
It may be argued that refusing to go to the police or testify under subpoena does, in fact, constitute a direct action. However, I believe the premise of this thread is to argue for or against the theoretical appropriateness of that action and whether or not that appropriateness is sufficient to warrant exemption of that action under the law. I believe I have made my stance and its underlying reasoning appropriately clear.
Ideally the reporter is bringing criminal activity to light, not keeping it secret. In other words, he/she’s keeping the source secret, not the source’s secrets. The reporter is exposing John Gotti’s secrets, thereby violating Omerta. More a reason for applause than jail time, IMO.
Peace,
mangeorge