Rachel Armstrong’s withholding of her source in Nothing But the Truth demonstrated how difficult it is for reporters to keep their sources anonymous. With no federal shield law, journalists are expected to release the names of any sources they use for a story, otherwise they can lose credibility and maybe even their jobs. In Armstrong’s case, she keeps her source anonymous to protect them and to keep her integrity. While what she did could be seen as admirable to other journalists, she may have caused more trouble than she prevented by not identifying where her information came from.
It is not uncommon for a reporter to try and keep their source safe from the world, especially when their source asks for anonymity. However, today in the United States we do not have a federal shield law to allow journalists to do this. When Allison Van Doren revealed to Rachel that her mother was a CIA agent, she ended the discussion with “Don’t tell anyone I told you, okay?” In the case of Cohen v. Cowles Media, Cohen gave records to some Minnesota newspapers and was promised confidentiality. He was later identified and fired from his job and when he sued for breach of contract, he lost because the First Amendment did not bar a promissory estoppel. While that wasn’t a concern on Allison’s, Rachel thought it was best to keep her anonymous for safety reasons.
Rachel knew that if she revealed that her source was Erica Van Doren’s 6-year-old daughter, not much good would come from it. Erica may have been upset with Allison and their family may have had some troubles. She also might have lost major credibility because her main source was from a young child and for all she knew, what Allison told her could be completely wrong. Most importantly, Rachel promised confidentiality to Allison and keeping that promise was important for Rachel’s integrity as a journalist and as a person. Also, while her story led to Erica’s murder, Rachel had nationally significant information that was important for the public to know, so she put it out there.
While she had people’s best interests in mind, Rachel also had a lot of reasons to give up her source. By keeping it anonymous, she was breaking the law. Such a serious topic that questioned whether or not the U.S. was attacking the right country needed a source attached to it. National security is very important to the government and any accusations that could affect the country’s involvement in a war need some actual evidence to be available. She also damaged relationships with her newspaper and her family by staying in jail. Her paper was fined $10,000 a day and she ended up getting divorced. She came off as somewhat selfish as the movie went on.
While she caused a lot of problems for herself and others, I think Rachel Armstrong made the right decision. There was no way for her to predict the tragedies that occurred after her story was published. She promised confidentiality and kept her integrity as a journalist. This story is important to journalism because it shows us how difficult life can be when journalists keep sources anonymous. It also makes you think about whether or not a federal shield law is necessary.
SOURCES
Nothing But the Truth
https://storify.com/nicole_kraft/media-law-and-ethics-in-film-comm-3404 (Lecture Slides)