It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reporter Source Confidentiality

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:08 PM
Recently we have seen an American reporter sentenced to jail time for refusing reveal who gave her the name of former CIA operative, Valerie Plame. This raises an interesting question to my mind, which at first was shocked with the notion. Should reporters have to divulge their source when the source has clearly broken the law? There are many reasons to force them to, many to not, and I am torn on the issue. I'm hoping some of y'all could help me to make up my mind by presenting cases for and against.

Just the tip of the iceberg, if they are required to divulge the source, chances are the source will never come forward. On the other hand, if they're guaranteed anonymity, they could break our laws to divulge secrets in the name of political gain. A perfect example is the Watergate scandal. Mark Felt probably never would have come forward if he would have his name revealed, and one of the biggest scandals to rock Washington never would have come to light. At the same time, it really appears Felt had a problem with Nixon's plans for the FBI, and for being snubbed for the top job, and wanted to get back at him by leaking information on an ongoing investigation, something that could very easily compromise the investigation.

So what's a fella to think?

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 7-7-2005 by junglejake]

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:01 PM
Here's my my two cents, as a member of the (rightly) much-maligned Mainstream Media..

This is an issue of national security. As a soldier, I swore an oath to protect against enemies both foreign and domestic.

There is such a think known as self-sensorship and there is a thing known as self-promotion. I am not going to reveal classified information (that might get our agents and theirs killed). Valerie Plame was working in the field of WMD proliferation. Very vital task. And no small thing.

As far as Bush stoogie Miller is concerned: Cry Me A River! She is protecting a criminal and a traitor as far as I'm concerned.

So, boo hoo.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:56 PM
Prove the source, lock them both up, throw away the keys.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:12 PM
I don't think anyone believes Rove will go down for this.

That's sad.

The hallmark of the Bush Administration has been the complete lack of accountability.

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:11 PM
So in general, the source should always be revealed when the law is broken? What about investigations like Watergate which, were that the case, never would have been broken and never come to the attention of the American public? Deep Throat broke the law, and compromised domestic security (rather than national, I figured domestic would be in regards to criminal activity, but I did just make it up
), but exposed something very important, too.

new topics


log in