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 on 7-7-2005 by junglejake]