Journalists, Sources Face Legal Scrutiny

[DuctapeFatwa]

With several reporters facing possible jail sentences and fines, there are signs mounting legal pressure on journalists to reveal confidential sources is having a chilling effect on newsgathering.

Clark Hoyt, the Washington editor of Knight Ridder, the nation's second-largest newspaper company, said he has seen two examples in recent weeks of sources declining to provide information after initially agreeing to do so confidentially.

The sources feared they might be investigated, or that their identities could be discovered from a subpoena of the reporter's phone records, Hoyt said.

"I think there is no question that there is greater anxiety among sources about talking to journalists," he said.
The ability of reporters to gather sensitive information confidentially received another challenge Thursday, when a federal judge approved an unusual request by bioterror expert Steven Hatfill to question journalists who wrote stories relating to the 2001 anthrax attacks....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/REPORTERS_SOURCES?SITE=SCCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[stickdog]

1. This is such bullshit. The First Amendment was not designed to protect

"journalists" who simply disseminate the prattle of in-power spinmeisters who demand anonymity merely to advance their masters' political agendas with no accountability for the veracity or even the criminality of their de facto press releases.

In contrast, journalists whose sources expose government or corporate malfeasance at personal risk clearly deserve First Amendment protection. Yet the press consistently pretends that these two very different sets of circumstances are one and the same.

[bemildred]

2. Screw "anonymous sources" and screw "reporters" that use them. nt