Protecting Sources

As budding journalist we are just begining to figure out ways to find sources. We talk to our friends and prowl the internet looking for reliable information.

The question is whether we think about their protection. This is in reference to those sources that find you, namely those looking to expose the corrupt.

In a recent article with the Society of Professional Journalists, Lucy Dalglish revealed a few of her tips for protecting whistleblowing sources. The folowing are a few that really stuck with me.

1. Be Clear- Your source need to be aware of what your willing to do to protect them.

2.Don't keep reports on file after your article is published.

3.Consider publishing everything- In doing so a subpoena may not be issued requiring you to give up any information you have left.

Protecting your sources is of the utmost inportance, especially when it comes to sensitive subject matter. People don't take to well to having their secrets exposed and will look for someone to blame.

While they may pursue you their is usually nothing they can do and their next target may be your sources. Know that if a source is revealled they will most likely never provide information again.

While not the most important reason to protect your sources, this is deffinately of high priority. Without our sources journalists really have nothing.

Read more...

Latest Attempt to Pass Federal Shield Law Fails

The latest attempt to get a federal shield law for journalists passed has failed once again with the conclusion of the 111th Congress in December. The coalition of media groups pushing for the shield law says it may be years before they get another chance.

A shield law would protect journalists from being forced to identify confidential sources in federal court. Support for a federal law began in 1972, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional privilege for journalists to protect their sources. Judith Miller's incarceration in 2005 for refusing to name the government source who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame was another important motivator. But proponents for the law say that it is not only about protecting journalists, but to allow anonymous sources and whistle blowers the security to speak out without worrying about their jobs or families.

The bill, supported by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, passed in the House in the spring of 2009 with broad, bipartisan support. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it soon after, but it never reached the Senate floor. The hectic lame duck session of Congress kept the bill from ever moving out of committee.

The bill's failure is largely blamed on disagreement over who would be considered a journalist, and fears that organizations like WikiLeaks would be protected.

"I think by the third WikiLeaks disclosure, at that point, we were trying to take the temperature of folks on the Hill," says Sophia Cope, legislative counsel for the Newspaper Association of America. "They were like, 'No way.'"

The bill would have had an exception for national security matters, and protection would have been restricted to traditional journalists with ties to media organizations - a compromise that media groups said they could live with. But the information released by WikiLeaks was the final nail in the coffin, despite the fact that the bill would not have covered a WikiLeaks-type of organization, and language was added to specifically prevent large information dumps like the kind released by WikiLeaks from being protected.

With a new, Republican Congress, the chances for a shield law being passed are low. But media groups say that they will not give up, despite the odds.

Photo credit: creativecommons.org

Read more...