Nothing but the Truth is a movie surrounding the decision made by a reporter for the Capital Sun-Times. The reporter finds out that a fellow neighborhood mom is in fact a CIA agent, who was recently in Venezuela investigating an assassination attempt on the president of the United States. Rachel Armstrong the reporter cannot get any information out of the other mom about being a CIA agent. Rachel than confirms her suspicion when she finds out from the daughter what her mothers job is, which is in fact a CIA agent. She then prints a story in the paper, outing the CIA agent, which is a federal offense. When asked who her source is, Rachel restrains the knowledge and is sentenced to prison for obstruction of the court. Not releasing her source keeps her from losing her credibility and her ethical beliefs, but she is punished for the illegal offense.
Looking at both sides of the argument, she was simply trying to do her job to the fullest, and had provision from her editor and legal counsel to do so. Unfortunately the Shield Law does not protect any journalist when there is a federal crime-taking place. A shield law “provides legal protection for the “reporters’ privilege” – protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information (Lecture 8.1).” Because of this she is sentenced to years in prison, which will keep her away from her family.
Historically this movie is very similar to the Branzburg vs. Hayes (1972) case. Paul Branzburg wrote two articles about people in Kentucky and the use of Marijuana. The pot users that he spoke to and gained information from asked to be kept anonymous. Branzburg was later subpoenaed in front of a grand jury for the articles he wrote. This again is an example of how a shield law cannot protect a journalist when he is reporting about an event that is a federal offense. Branzburg believed he was just reporting the news as an act of the first amendment, but unfortunately not protected by a shield law (Branzburg vs. Hayes 1972). When Branzburg was asked to testify against the illegal acts that were taking place in Kentucky, he refused and would not release any of his sources.
For the situation in Nothing but the Truth I feel the journalist, Rachel Armstrong, could have handled the situation differently. Obviously I am able to say this now because I have witnessed the problem in retro-spec and know of the consequences of these actions. I would have looked further into the situation, and got my facts straight about revealing a CIA agent through the media. Once I found out that this was a federal offense I would have dropped the story knowing that I would not be protected by the shield law. I do not think that writing a story that is sketchy, and from the source of a child would be worth having to be away from my family in jail. Of course I only know this because of the information we have learned in class.
I believe this has a high impact on journalism. I think journalists across the country will see this story and be hesitant to produce anything that may put them in jail without proper investigation. This may change the amount of information that sources reveal as well because of the repercussions that can take place.
Sources
Lecture Slides 8.1 – Shield Law
Nothing but the Truth (2008)
Branzberg vs. Hayes (1972) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/665