Confidential Sources Analysis

How far should journalists go to protect their sources? Confidential sources should only be used as a last resort because in some extraordinary situations there is precedence in which it is warranted or morally advisable to reveal a source; therefore a journalist should only extend anonymity when it is absolutely necessary to get the story and if a journalist feels so strongly that his or her source must be protected, then he or she should be willing to go to jail to do the protecting.

The simple answer exists in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. It states the source should be identified whenever possible and clarifying his or her motives before publishing the material is very important. A journalist should also confirm and attribute the information of the source before relying on the information (Society of Professional Journalists, 1996-2010).

According to Miami News-Record Editor Patrick Richardson (2014), “Protection of sources is one of the major responsibilities of a journalist. The key is to extend anonymity only when it is absolutely necessary to get the story — i.e. the source will not speak on the record and is the only one, who has the requisite information, and it is necessary as well for the protection — whether physical or job related — of your source. If those conditions are not met then anonymity should not be extended” (Richardson, 2014).

Currently there are 49 states in the United States that have shield laws and in most cases the law acknowledges journalists are compelled to divulge their source in some situations (Fargo, 2011). There never will be a shield law that will grant complete safeguard to sources. Laws will consistently attempt a compromise to initiate equilibrium. It is ...

... middle of paper ...

...cret is important to the public and keeping the sources identify confidential is important because they could have a great deal to lose if they divulge what they know. When a journalist can no longer feel they can protect the identify of their source, the public will not be as informed about the world.

Confidential sources should be used as a last resort but if a journalist feels strongly enough that their source must be protected, then they should be willing to go to jail to do the protecting. Furthermore, if some journalists had not kept their sources identity secret then some of the biggest stories would not have been divulged such as the Pentagon Papers and who was behind Watergate and Enron. However, journalists need to realize shield laws are different in each state and they pose no guarantee the journalist will be protected from divulging their source.