Comments on: Should journalists be forced to reveal their sources?

By: sweetpea913

sweetpea913 — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 02:40:17 +0000

i think that if journalists were forced to reveal their sources, a lot of people would not provide journalists with information. The people who do not want to be known obviously have a reason, good or bad.

By: Liberaltarian91

Liberaltarian91 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:55:44 +0000

Forced? By what?

And say if a journalist doesn't post their source…

What will happen to them?

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:34:56 +0000

Definately. Then we could be able to tell if they just made it up.

By: Liberty

Liberty — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:20:12 +0000

I can see where going to too much of an extreme on either end could have its dangers. If we go too far towards secrecy, we won't know who to trust. If we go too far towards openness, we risk such sources being manipulated. So I think that no, they should not be forced to do so, but that they should make it a good business practice to state where they got their information. I for one enjoy knowing where people have gotten their information, particularly when they want me to trust them.

By: Andrew Clunn

Andrew Clunn — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:33:25 +0000

If you want to take someone to trial, then you need to share your source with at least the judge. Without sighted sources, anything is nothing more than hear say. Also, I found it ironic that you called us lefties, as traditionally the protection of media and journalistic rights has been a left aligned view. i don't think this issue really fits into the "left / right" false dichotomy.

By: papadawg

papadawg — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:50:20 +0000

If journalists had no choice in giving up their sources, then Nixon would have gotten away with his spying on the Democrats at the Watergate Hotel because "deep throat" would have been made public long before he testified, and that would have silenced him forever.

Once we take away the secret sources for journalists then we will have all of them under the political gun to give out only favorable stories for those in political power – that means that no one would have been able to criticize GWB on how and why he invaded Iraq.

You liberals cannot have your cake and eat it too . . .

Obummer is doing his best to lock down the media to only what he wants reported and he is trying his best to silence those of us who disagree with his very dangerous policies. Never in the history of this country has so much political corruption been so evident as with the current batch of criminals now in DC, and that includes BOTH political parties.

Be careful what you wish for, liberals, be VERY careful, for you might just get it!

That is my not-so-humble opinion. B)

By: Andrew Clunn

Andrew Clunn — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:23:46 +0000

I'm with LordTiberivs on this one. The argument for letting journalists keep their sources hidden is the same type of argument made for validating the State Secrets Privilege, and we all know how much BS that is.

By: LordTiberivs

LordTiberivs — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:58:27 +0000

This isn't freedom of the press papadawg. The debate isn't: "should the press be limited on what they can print". First amendment states that they still have freedom of speech just like everyone else. This issue is whether they should have to reveal their sources. If anything it would give credibility to stories with well known and informed sources, and point out flaws where the sources are unreliable. It forces the press to a level of responsibility that we don't hold them to today.

Why should they be allowed to with hold their source? You're answering the wrong question here.

By: papadawg

papadawg — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:16:31 +0000

No more freedom of the press, Jared?

Oh the fallacy of youth . . .

Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)

By: Jared

Jared — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:19:49 +0000

Yea, why not. I want to know where they get their sources from.