Free press: Should reporters be shielded from releasing the names of their confidential sources?

  • Reporters should be allowed to keep their sources private.

    I believe reporters should not be required to reveal the identities of their confidential sources. Many of the people who offer information to reporters do so only because the reporter is able to guarantee they will remain anonymous. Once reporters are no longer able to make this promise, there won't be anyone interested in giving them information.

  • Sources Should Be Protected

    I believe reporters should be shielded from releasing the names of their confidential sources. Confidentiality is important, especially in the field of media and reporting. If we strip these rights the government will have a stronger ability to control the media. They are already doing it, we should not allow it to get worse.

  • Yes, reporters shouldn't have to release sources.

    I do not think that reporters should have to release the names of some of their sources. I think they should be protected by it. It is something that gives some people the trust they need to give info to some reporters that might end up being important for a story.

  • Nope bad idea

    Seems pretty bad to me lol. S o I d o n t t h i n k i t i s a g o o d i d e a a n d i n e e d t o g e t the word limit so yeah guys.

  • They are not special.

    No, reporters should not be shielded from releasing the names of their confidential sources, because if someone breaks the law by revealing confidential information, they should have to answer to the rest of us. We have good reasons for not wanting CIA or FBI secrets to be revealed. People need to follow the law.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.