Nothing But The Truth

Nothing But The Truth, based off of the true story of Judith Miller, examines the difficulties reporters must face when working with sources. Rachel Armstrong, a dedicated reporter for the Sun Capital Times, reveals the identity of a CIA operative. This, however, is a tremendous offense in the eyes of the Supreme Court because it runs the risk of a threat to national security.

I have a lot of respect for what Rachel Armstrong stood for when she wouldn’t reveal her source. She says in the film that she’s standing up for the all the reporters, especially the female reporters, by not revealing the source. I agree that this is what reporters and journalists live for; the stories that bring corruption to the forefront, and hopefully change the way the government works. A year in jail seems a bit excessive, though. She put her family through the ringer, ruined her marriage, and ruined the life of a little girl who didn’t know what she was doing. She put her career before her family, and that is something I could never do, personally.

Keeping in mind the “Do no harm” adage of SPJ, I do not believe I would have run the story. However, it is a slippery slope. If I published the article, there would be harm done to the little girl and my own family. But there also could be harm done to many people outside of my circle, such as other CIA operatives, if I didn’t publish the article. Harm will always be done, and I don’t think there is any way around that. In hindsight, I wouldn’t have run the article, but at the time, this is the kind of Pulitzer Prize news story that every journalist dreams of and could never pass up.

Being that Erica’s daughter is a minor, I would try to work something out with the court that dismisses the trial without harming the little girl. Perhaps by revealing the source to the judge privately, the public would be assured that national security is safe, and the source is identified. The whole situation, ideally, would be swept under the rug and forgotten about so the little girl doesn’t know later in life she was responsible for her mother’s death. Is this realistic, I’m not sure, but, the whole story is a little bit out there anyway.

In 1972, Branzburg v. Hayes established that “news reporters do not have a right under the First Amendment to refuse to appear or testify before a grand jury”. Shield laws do not exist at a federal level because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case. Shield laws are meant to protect national security, understandably. They are also supposed to protect journalists’ from being forced to reveal sources. A shield law would’ve saved Rachel from years in jail.

It is hard to say if Rachel thought about the consequences of her actions. I want to believe, as a seasoned reporter, she realized how far her story would go. I don’t believe there was actual malice behind her story, protecting her from libel, but there was definitely harm done in the process. When the lawyer says that she doesn’t need to worry about libel in her story, Rachel thinks she’s off the hook. This, to me, shows how irresponsible she is with this information. She is also irresponsible with the little girl’s information, knowing it would change her life.

 

Sources:

http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw-faq.asp

www.uslawshield.com

Leave a Reply

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