In Ireland last week, the editor of the Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy, and her public affairs correspondent Colm Keena were ordered by the High Court to appear before the Mahon tribunal (also know as The Tribunal of Inquiry Into Certain Planning Matters and Payments) to reveal the identity of a source. The source in question provided information that the Mahon tribunal was investigating payments made to Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern in 1993. The Irish Times ran the story in September of 2006.
The Mahon tribunal sought the help of the High Court after Kennedy and Keena would not comply with their initial request to identify the name of their source. The journalists have been warned that if they do not comply with the courts orders, they will be found in contempt and may face jail time. Kennedy has already been criticized by the court for destroying the documents sent to her regarding payments made to Bertie Ahern.
The National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) said that the ruling is a threat to the practices of all journalists because protecting one's sources is a central principle of journalism.
I agree with the decision made by Kennedy and Keena to not reveal the name of their source. By deciding to print the article, they made a promise to their source that they would keep their identity a secret. Any trouble that comes from the article is their responsibility now, because they could have easily chosen to disregard the information given to them.
I also don't belive the court should have the authority to force them to reveal the name of their source. There are countless stories printed everyday where sources ask not to be named for fear of punishment by their employers, etc. There would be no news if people had to worry about consequences for revealing information.
The Irish Times
The Boston Globe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think that anyone has the right to know a source of any journalist. I recall a moment in middle school where I was being accused of something that I had not done, and when I asked for their source to prove approach me to make sure it is true, they said they cannot disclose that information. I now understand what the reprocussions could have been if the source were to be released to me. Any source should always be protected to the highest, even if a court decides to subpoena them. I don't recall the last time a name of a government agent on a foreign mission was disclosed...oh that's right, his or her life can be put in danger...got it!
I think that there are some times when a source should be revealed. But I think in cases where it is a high profile case then the source should have anonymonity. Its a hard decision though because how do you fully trust a newspaper who is able to quote anonymous sources. Who is holding the newspapers accountabl?
As soon as I read the headline I immediately though about the gentleman who worked at the New York times who was creating false stories. Having true and credible sources is one of the most important factors of being ethical as a journalist. When you lose this aspect of your work you cease to be called a journalist.
Post a Comment