Journalism needs legal protection for confidential sources

House Editorial

Jim Taricani, a broadcast journalist in Rhode Island, was found guilty of contempt of court Nov. 18 after he refused to reveal who provided him with a videotape he aired in 2001. The tape showed an aide to former Providence Mayor Vincent Cianci Jr. accepting a bribe. Taricani acted legally in airing it, but was held in contempt of court after he failed to reveal to a special prosecuter the source who had violated court orders in leaking the tape to him.

Cases in which journalists are charged for contempt of court reveal a need for a change in the status of journalism under the law — it should not be required that a reporter surrender notes, names or any other information gathered in confidence unless extraordinary circumstances arise. Taricani’s case didn’t include extraordinary circumstances.

Similar exceptions already exist under the law. Doctors, lawyers and priests all have protected confidentiality between themselves and their patrons. This protection serves two roles: it saves patrons from breaches of privacy, but it is primarily ensures that these professionals can perform their jobs.

While journalists should enjoy the same protection as these other professionals, they also should be subject to similar restrictions. There are certain cases in all confidential client-professional relationships where the privileged communication can be required in court. Doctors can be called to testify in cases of suspected child abuse and gunshot victims, priests are required to testify in cases of child abuse and lawyers can be called to testify against clients when involved in litigation with them. Journalists also should be prepared to surrender information pursuant to similar investigations.

Unlike private citizens, journalists, doctors, priests and lawyers lose the ability to function if people cannot trust their secrets will not be revealed. A patient trusts that his or her revelations will stay in the doctor’s office — regardless of how personal — and, without that trust, it is impossible for any doctor to confidently treat a patient. If journalists lose that trust, it becomes impossible for them to confidently report anything — their sources either will disappear or simply lie.

The journalism profession requires that the journalist be trustworthy and credible, and, if either of those elements are lost, the journalist ceases to be effective. It is not the responsibility of journalists to assist in investigations but to inform the public. If a journalist can use his or her abilities to discover information the police can’t, it is because the journalist is not necessarily a threat to their source.

Taricani’s civil disobedience is an ethically correct choice — he was entrusted with confidential information with the understanding it would remain confidential. Journalists who refuse to reveal their confidential sources are making the decision to sacrifice justice in an isolated incident in favor of ensuring that journalism is protected in the long run. Journalism’s social responsibility is not to the legal investigations of criminals — that role falls to law enforcement. Maintaining confidentiality ensures that journalists will be able to gather a more complete set of information, and, as a result, better serve the public. The indirect effect of making criminal investigations more difficult is unfortunate in the short term, but is vastly outweighed by the maintenance of the credibility of the journalism profession.