What would you do?

Last night in my Cybermedia Law class, we spent most of class talking about reporter's privilege and the First Amendment. One of the hypothetical questions that arose was "would you be willing to go to jail for a source?" I think this is a great ethical question that a journalist should think about when in the business of news gathering.

Think about it. You are a reporter working on a big story about illegal drug problems in your community. You are able to contact several sources that are willing to be interviewed. You promise your sources anonymity because they could face negative repercussions for talking to you. Next thing you know, you receive a subpoena from the courts that require you to release your sources since they are participating in illegal activity.

What would you do?

After going through some examples in my law class, I came to the personnal conclusion that I would indeed keep my promise to my sources to protect their well-being and have the possibility of being jailed than give them up to the courts.

My major reason for coming to that decision is because it speaks of a reporter's credibility. If I promise a source that I would not reveal their name, I intend to do just that. What would it say of a reporter's credibility when they go back on their word and publish the names of the sources when they had previously promised anonymity. The next story they work on might not go as well when the sources do not trust the reporter writing the story.

The second reason I would choose this reasoning is the Branzburg v. Hayes case of 1972. The case involves a reporter, Branzburg, who was called to testify to the grand jury (twice, actually) about drug crimes he was investigating. Both times, Branzburg refused to testify. The courts however generally agree it is the obligation of every citizen to cooperate with the government and testify before the proper authorites. This reasoning being that reporters should not be held at a higher standard than the average citizen. I agree with that statement but I think that "freedom of the press" was put in the Constitution for a reason.

I think that the road to my reasoning is using the care-based thinking described in Kidder's book that we are all reading for Ethics class. I generally put myself in other's shoes before I make most of my decisions. If I were the source that had agreed to talk to a reporter about what I know about a certain topic, I would want the reporter to keep my name confidential. If the reporter betrayed my trust, that would make me less likely to talk to the press regarding this or any other stories.

It makes you think, though. Most of us that are going into the reporting business has to be mindful of this scenario, hopeful that it never comes up, but aware that it is a possibility. So I pose the question to you.

What would you do?