As it should be.

Media types talk a lot about accountability for politicians, but what about accountability for reporters and their sources?  A shield law preventing reporters from being compelled to disclose their confidential sources would only serve to remove accountability from those reporters and confidential sources.

Imagine our entire government - tens of thousands of bureaucrats trusted with information pertaining to nearly every aspect of our lives from finances to medical care - at liberty to disclose whatever they want to reporters with near impunity.  Is that really a situation we want?  Is this really what the founders envisioned when they guaranteed a free and independent press in the Constitution?

Personally, I don’t define a “free press” as a mob of reporters disclosing what is fed them by anonymous sources (many of whom have their own agenda) with no possible way to find out who those sources are.  Not to mention the nature of their motivations.

I understand the necessity for whistleblowers.  I get that sometimes the only way to disclose government malfeasance is to use information illicitly disclosed by sources who, for their own well-being, need to remain anonymous.  But are we really to believe that judges aren’t capable of deciding when it’s appropriate to compel reporters to disclose those sources and when it’s not?

Reporters aren’t asking for protection here.  They’re asking for a blank check to report what they want without worrying about accountability or consequences.