Codes of journalistic ethics

Journalist’s right to protection from disclosure of confidential sources and unpublished information is key to ensuring a free flow of information and the right of public access to information. In order to share resources freely with reporters at their disposal the information they need to be confident that their identity not be disclosed. In order to preserve its editorial independence, the reporters also must be able to protect the information they gathered from the annoying attention of authorities or private organizations. Without such safeguards the ability of the press to exercise oversight of the authorities and expose cases of corruption will be seriously undermined.

Codes of journalistic ethics in most cases require journalists to protect confidential sources. Reporter for the implementation of this covenant is a question of honor, as well as practical necessity. A journalist, who has violated a promise of confidentiality, can not continue to rely on the credibility of other sources. For this reason, journalists keep the secret of their sources, even if there is a risk of incurring the punishment. When considering the protection of the rights of journalists to gather information and to maintain the confidentiality of sources and unpublished material, lawmakers have to deal with some sort of dilemma. On the one hand, the Constitution clearly states that the government may not restrict the freedom of speech and press. This assertion is based on the fact that journalists have the same protection and are subject only to the same restrictions as any citizen of the country, according to the rules of democratic society. But on the other hand, the state needs to consolidate the special “rights” to journalists, such as: the right of access to information and the right of access to facts and events of an informative nature, or even testimonial privilege (the right of journalists to refuse to testify in court). (Shepard 2011)
In many countries the right of journalists to protect confidentiality of sources is guaranteed in some or other form by the law or decisions of the judges. In the U.S. there is no federal law of this kind, but in the twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia there is legislation providing such protection to some extent. Some of the laws guarantee the preservation of name of a confidential source in secret, other laws also protect unpublished material. But the scope of the law application and the degree of protection provided may be different, depending on the type of proceedings (criminal or civil), or the role of the journalist, the third party or parties in the process.
In the courts of most American states are recognized the special rights of journalists under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of the press in the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Shepard 2011)
Primarily, press freedom means the news media are not subject to censorship by the government. In other words, the government does not have the right to try to control or block certain things from being published by the press. But this privilege rights of journalists are usually not absolute, but qualified and can be refuted. (Pember, p. 363)
It should be said about special cases when a journalist has received information from a confidential source, and later he is sued for libel. In the U.S., government officials and public figures, to have a basis for such a claim, must prove the existence of a “express malice’ by the journalist. However, they base their claim as follows: to prove that the journalist knew of the falsity of the information or acted in bad faith, they need to know the names of confidential sources. According to some courts, prior to oblige journalists to reveal the source, the plaintiff must prove that the information is false and defames his reputation, as well as that this information is of great relevance to the case and can not be obtained from another source. Most disputes arise in the courtroom in cases when the journalist refuses to violate his obligations to the confidential source. Loyal to their ethical principles, journalists would rather pay a fine or to sit in jail than testify.