When Should Journalists Reveal Their Sources?

Credits: All from AP - from left: Martin Mejia (Lima 2000), David de la Paz (Mexico City 1999), Jose Luis Magana (Mexico City 1998), Nasser Nasser (Ramallah 2002), Srdjan Ilic (Kosovo 1998) & Nasser Nasser (Ramallah 2000).

May 7, 2010

Journalist Safety
UN Resolution 1738

Journalist Safety
CoE Resolution 1535

Killing The Messenger
- INSI Global Inquiry - Report and Recommendations

Live News Africa
- A Survival Guide for Journalists

AIB Directory

Translations of key INSI information are available below in PDF format.
Note: You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your system to read them.

When Should Journalists Reveal Their Sources?

ack in 2004, Judith Miller was cited for disregard as she declined to name the source of the leak that identified Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA operative. Miller at last spent just about a quarter in a New York jail till eventually, after receiving authorization from her source, uncloaked the name of the individual that leaked the data to her-one Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's CEO of Staff.

The tale sparked quite a rumpus thanks to the circumstances surrounding the case.

Many felt that Miller was correct to guard her source, citing the duty of a journalist to protect their sources as sacrosanct, while others disagreed that a reporter is not obligated to protect someone that has purposefully lied so as to use the press to distibute rhetoric. Complicating the issue further was Millers ' prior journalistic wrongdoing when she released stories pertaining to Saddam Hussein's weapons programs that were shown to be definitely fake. Miller was obviously biased in favour of going to war with Iraq, leading her to regurgitate White House publicity releases as if they were actually independently analyzed reports.

This did not endear her to many that may have otherwise been inclined to stand with her. Fast forward to the present and we find that we are caught in the same furore all over again. In an obvious suicide, govt scientist Bruce E. Ivins died Tues. , just as the Justice Dep. was getting ready to charge him with sending the anthrax laced letters that was the cause of deaths of 5 folks back in 2001. Or so we are told anyhow. The case against Ivins might not be as open and shut as many would have us believe. There is however one thing that happens to be completely clear-the anthrax laced letters were in no way hooked up to Saddam Hussein as was generally reported at the start. Brian Ross of ABC Reports reported back in October 2001 that traces of the chemical bentonite, a signature component of Saddam's weapons programme was discovered in the anthrax samples. In both these cases the sources purposively lied to manipulate the press into advancing their agenda. If it becomes clear the source is purposively lying, especially when high ranking administration officers are concerned, no longer are they able to be considered sources. When it's disclosed that the governing body is in truth lying to those they have sworn to serve, that then becomes the tale. No longer are correspondents obligated to guard their identities, their requirement is now to bare their identity. This is the character of a clear democracy as well as the profession of those trusted to keep it clear.

Back to the Headlines