I wouldn’t call this a sad state of affairs. Say I got a tip about an impending sale/merger, and knew that others were acting on that inside information. Say I posted on that. Say a later SEC investigation called me as a witness. Do I get to shield my source? No, I get to testify or get called on contempt or obstruction of justice.

Does Miller’s NY Times ID badge give her extra rights that I lack?

And it would be an even sadder state of affairs when sources who divulge confidential information that 1. threatens human life, 2. threatens national security, and 3. does it in the name of “politics” can get away with it by invoking the First Amendment. Courts disallow attorney/client confidentiality and doctor/patient confidentiality when lives are on the line…and it is certainly the case that when you have an individual who is ready to jeopardize the lives of Americans who are already putting themselves in grave danger in order to protect this country (without which, we likely wouldn’t have any first amendment rights), that a reporter has a responsibility to turn over a name in order to save lives.

I look at it this way… I give a tip about company X merging with company Y to a reporter I’m friends with, as a favor. I don’t work for them, I don’t own stock in either company. She runs with it. Breaks the story. Merger is called off. Two companies take tons of heat. They decide to sue to find out who knew what, when. She’s no longer allowed to protect her source. If she does, she goes to jail.

Or… I overhear Senator Schumer talking on his cell phone about “going to war for the Supreme Court.” (As was reported on Drudge today.) Let’s say he dropped names, numbers, etc. Granted, he would be stupid for doing it – but if I leak that to my friends at the Washington Post, can I be assured that my anonimity will continue?

(Forgive the spellings – I just got back from a run. All sweaty.)

Yes Casey But… (That’s going to be my standard reply to you, Casey. Yes Casey But.)

Fact is, I wasn’t making this a political issue. I know the man (if we can call him a man) to whom you’re referring – and if he’s found guilty of leaking confidential secrets, yes, he should hang – but this isn’t political. I’m simply saying that reporters used to have a sort of immunity – not about life or death, but sources that trusted them – Think WP’s W/B – Deep Throat. Where would that be had Deep Throat not been able to trust W/B?

Agreed…BUT (see, I can do it too)…treason and life-or-death situations are different. It may not be as bright of a line as we would like, but regardless of politics, we need some standard.

And you shouldn’t be passing along secrets like that anyway…it’s not ethical, and you’re only doing it to forge a relationship with the media. Don’t be such a publicist.

Be especially careful if you seek out information on a matter which your own employer then publicly brands as a criminal act and demands appointment of and investigation by a special prosecutor.

When it comes to grand jury testimony on a criminal investigation, you’ll quickly learn that reporters (let alone flacks) have no special rights compared to any other citizens to withhold info.

Be especially careful if you seek out information on a matter which your own employer then publicly brands as a criminal act and demands appointment of and investigation by a special prosecutor.

When it comes to grand jury testimony on a criminal investigation, you’ll quickly learn that reporters (let alone flacks) have no special rights compared to any other citizens to withhold info.