Movie Challenge #3: “Nothing but the Truth”

In “Nothing but the Truth” the main ethical issue was whether or not Rachel should reveal her source. Shield laws provide legal protection against the government requiring journalists to reveal confidential sources. However, there is no shield protection at the federal level. In Branzburg v Hayes it was decided that journalists do not have a right to refuse to reveal sources in court if “the subject is of overriding and compelling state interest.” In this film, Rachel was jailed and her paper was fined $10,000 everyday that she did not reveal her source.

I see both sides of this debate. Since her source revealed the identity of a CIA agent, it could be scene as a threat to national security. In that case, the government has the right to force her to reveal her source or face punishment, since there is no shield law at the national level. One the other hand, being forced to reveal sources is something that influences journalism by threatening one of the most vital functions of the press, serving as a watchdog by uncovering stories. In pursuit of these stories journalists must often obtain information from sources that sometimes wish to not be revealed. If journalists reveal their sources after being forced to then it could prevent future sources from talking even if confidentiality is promised.

Although some say a shield law could harm national security, Ted Olson, the former solicitor general said, “but we do not recoil from judicial oversight when it comes to attorney-client or physician-patient privilege. There is no reason we should reject it when it comes to journalist-source communications.” He has a very good point that I agree with. In our study guide on newsgathering, it is stated under access “as long as laws don’t single out press, they can be applied to the press.” However allowing attorney-client privilege and physician-patient privilege, but not journalist-source privilege, singles out the press by not including them in that right.

In another instance, Foxnews.com reporter Jana Winter fought a push from a judge to reveal sources who gave her information regarding the Aurora shooter. Winter said “If I am forced to reveal the identities of persons whom I have promised to shield from public exposure, simply put, I will be unable to function effectively in my profession, and my career will be over.” I completely agree with her statement. In order to report the best version of the truth we need sources and in order to get sources, we need to ensure protection of their identity if they wish. It is a threat to national security if journalists can’t serve as watchdogs and report because no sources feel comfortable coming forward.

Although I believe this, I do think I would have revealed the source in Rachel’s situation. Revealing that it was a little girl would have caused the child no harm and it could have saved the life of the CIA agent, jail time for Rachel and the money the paper had to pay. However, I respect her for not revealing her source and maintaining journalistic professionalism. I believe she set a good example that even in these extreme circumstances journalists can be trusted. However, I believe protecting her source did more harm than good and the SPJ Code of Ethics states to “minimize harm.”

 

Sources:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-reporter-if-forced-to-reveal-sources-my-career-will-be-over/175570?red=tn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rod-lurie/nothing-but-the-truth-abo_b_147556.html

Lecture on shield laws: 8.1

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *