"Governments often chafe at the presence of a free press. The reason is simple: A robust and independent news media keeps a sharp eye on government and, when necessary, exposes abuse of power, corruption, incompetence and waste.
Exposing such things depends, of course, not just on journalists but also on brave officials willing to sound the alarm about government misconduct. Even when their disclosures are clearly in the public interest, these whistle-blowers — or sources, in the journalistic parlance — often hide their identities to avoid punishment or retaliation. In this way, bringing essential information to the public often depends on protecting the identity of the person sharing it.
Safeguarding the anonymity of reporters’ sources is essential in the exercise of this critical role, a need that several federal courts have found is implicit in the First Amendment. It has been recognized by governments or courts in 49 states and the District of Columbia as a form of protection for journalists and news outlets against unfair or overbearing efforts by government to ferret out their sources, punish whistle-blowers and scare off others who might consider speaking up about wrongdoing.
There is nothing of the sort, however, on the federal level, where the need is arguably greatest, in part because of the rapid evolution of electronic snooping and the fallout of sharply polarized politics. Having a federal law on the books would provide a higher level of protection than the recognition now provided by most federal circuit courts."
The New York Times editorial board published the editorial October 14, 2024.
SEE ALSO:
Advertisement 
