Journalists cannot protect sources: top court

[cory777]

Source: AFP

By Michel Comte (AFP)

OTTAWA — Canadian media's attempt to establish a right to protect confidential sources was quashed by the nation's highest court on Friday.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the National Post daily to hand over to police documents obtained from a source in 2001 alleging a former prime minister's involvement in a loan scandal.

The court recognized the public's interest "in being informed about matters of public importance that may only see the light of day through the cooperation of sources who will not speak except on condition of confidentiality."

Canada's judiciary was urged to respect promises of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor "in appropriate circumstances."

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gi94G19J4NZUAni60ynzYTEd9syw

[whereaminow]

1. I would suggest wider use of wikileaks for the time being

The journalists will just have to rely on truly anonymous, even to them, sources of information.

[Liberty Belle]

2. It's a sad day for freedom of the press in Canada.

This will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who now have to fear being exposed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. There is no shield law at the Federal level in the US

Not sure if all states have it. Also games are played with who is a journalist. Look at the raid Apple recently orchestrated.

[Liberty Belle]

3. That's a poor substitute because anyone can make something up.

As a journalist I would not publish something leaked to me anonymously unless I could verify it elsewhere.

But I HAVE published info leaked by a reliable source who wants anonymity preserved. A prime example is a Diebold whistleblower I once interviewed. He told me inside details about how an election was rigged. The interview led to the Diebold CEO resigning and shareholders filing a lawsuit. Although I had only a single source, I knew who he was and had good reason to believe his info was credible.

An anoymous blog posting just wouldn't have been enough to go to print with, and also you can't ask questions, just take it or leave it.

[whereaminow]

5. And more people are able to see and verify it if leaked anonymously

Wide exposure is what's needed to frustrate the authorities. Your anecdote is no more verifiable than any other disclosure. You can trust your source, but we can't, and thus have to trust you. I don't know you from Adam. See what I'm saying? Just put the info out there, with or without attribution, and leave the verification to us. This will keep the cops off our backs, and yours.