Codes of journalistic ethics

Speaking of journalistic privilege not to disclose sources of confidential information, it should be noted that the U.S. legislation has no clear statement on this issue. At the same time, the decision on the case Hayes against Branzburg (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972) U.S. Supreme Court pointed to the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of journalistic sources of information to ensure “free flow of information protected by the First Amendment.” The court, in particular, noted that based on the meaning of the First Amendment, a journalist can refuse to testify in court only when he is forced to testify not for a fair investigation, but for other dishonest purposes. This Supreme Court decision was the basis for the protection of “journalistic privilege” in 49 states of America – in 33 states have passed relevant laws, while in other 16 states the right of journalists to maintain confidential sources of information was confirmed in judicial decisions. However, the journalistic privilege is exposed at the federal level, that allows courts to sentence journalists to prison terms and fines, and the attempt to adopt such a federal law was not successful.
So, in a U.S. court a criminal case for libel can not be considered, and all cases must be settled in civil proceedings for defamation. Moreover, in all such cases the claimant uses the services of a lawyer or defend its rights itself, but the prosecutor in the case of defamation does not interfere. The first possible situation in which the editors will be required to disclose the true name of the source or author, is the civil proceedings for defamation, in which they are sued. However, such an obligation arises for the editorial does not automatically, but only at the request of the court and after a rather complex procedure, which is often called “test”. This test was formulated by the judges, who had a dissenting opinion in the case Branzburg v. Hayes, considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972. The test consists of three parts, and the positive response to each of them is mandatory for a court decision on the need to reveal anonymous sources or an alias. The plaintiff must show that, firstly, the identity of a source of information is certainly relevant to the case of defamation under consideration in this process, and secondly, that the real name of the source of information is the key, without which this work can not properly be allowed, and finally, there is no other way to find out the real name of the source, but to compel editors to reveal it. There’s also the second situation, in which editors will be required to disclose the true identity of the source or author of the article – it is a situation when an American prosecutor, investigating a particular criminal case (for example, murder) wants to know the real name of the author of an article, that was published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the author was a witness to the crime and he knows something very important for his disclosure. The American prosecutor can only ask, but do not have the right to require the disclosure of the true version of the author of this article. However, the editorial board or any of its employees will be obliged to disclose an alias to the “grand jury” (grand jury is an expanded jury of 12 to 23 people).
According to the already mentioned case Branzburg against Hayes, there is no right of journalists to refuse to disclose the true name of the source of information when required by the “grand jury.” The basis of this precedent is the principle of American criminal justice system, which focuses on the use of criminal penalties for all possible evidence. At last, it is necessary to speak about shield laws, which provide reporters some protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. These laws outline the reporter’s privilege established in the state. The statutes generally establish who can use the privilege, the kinds of information the privilege protects (confidential and nonconfidential), and any qualifications that might accrue (for example, instances when disclosure is mandated). (Pember, p.398)

References
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
CRS Report for Congress 2008. “Journalists’ Privilege: Overview of the Law and Legislation in the 109th and 110th Congresses”.
Pember Don R., Calvert C. (2010). Mass media law. McGraw-Hill
“Protecting Unpublished Information and Confidential Sources”. Thefirstamendment.org. Retrieved from: http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html
Shepard Jason M. (2011).Privileging the Press: Confidential Sources, Journalism Ethics, and the First Amendment. Lfb Scholarly Pub Llc