Journalists embrace the belief that confidential sources should be protected because many stories would never surface if journalists did not agree to protect the sources who have given them the information. Coming forward to tell a story that may be incriminating, may be of value to the individual, but knowing that you will not be revealed as the story unfolds, bring forth an added sense of security for the individual who has the information. Also, journalists consider this confidentiality agreement as a corner stone of their profession. Not revealing your sources, especially regarding potentially damaging stories, is necessary to get factual, accurate, and corroborated information.
Like was explained in our Text Media/impact, many individuals over the years have held their sources secret for 30 or more years, as in the case of "Deep Throat" the source for the Watergate scandal. Also discussed was the Judith Miller story, where Judith went to jail for 4 months, not revealing her source for naming a CIA operative, until her source came forth, and then resigned from hi position with Vice President Cheney.
I agree that no revealing sources, once the story is corroborated by numerous sources, is fair. Journalists have been telling the world what they have needed and wanted to know for centuries. Having the ability to share important information with the public at large has made us a more informed society. And the fact that not being forced to reveal your source, also allows the journalist to keep their integrity as a reporter of the facts.
good points
ReplyDelete25/25