Sworn to Secrecy....or so you think

Keeping a source anonymous and confidential is often necessary in journalism, especially if you want that source to still trust you. But sometimes a third party gets in the way. An example of this happened not so long ago in Britain when London's police force demanded to know the sources for The Guardian Newspaper's articles on Britain's phone-hacking scandal. When public interest is the issue we must question who is right in the situation. While I do think that it is important that people respect anonymity and confidentiality in journalism, we must also consider that in some legal cases it is in the public's interest for the sources to be known. Knowing who the source is can make a story more credible because people are taking responsibility for what they say, without a name printed in the article all you can do is go off how credible the journalist is. In Britain's case, what angered many is that the London police referred to the Official Secrets Act (associated with espionage) as a way to get around protection of sources in Journalism. They used the Police and Criminal Evidence Act against The Guardian Newspaper. Charges were dropped. But we still should think about what the pros and cons are of confidentiality in journalism....and to what extent that confidentiality should be allowed. Any thoughts?

First is usually not always best...

While I have other blogs saved that I need to upload I was reading an article today and I felt this was really important. It has been widely known that Amanda Knox was released upon her acquittal from the Italian prison she had been held in for nearly 4 years. Yet, while many people see her as an innocent victim, many still see her as a vicious sex-crazed killer. This is largely due to the media. In the rush to be the first to get a story published, often information may be misinterpreted and can even change the context of the story. In Amanda Knox's case, many were posting about her being guilty (of what many believed was murder) when in fact she was only guilty of slander. This is when you must take into account how credible the source is. Twitter is a fantastic way to find things out quickly, but it can also lead to rumors and scandals. Now, anybody can post online and claim to be a journalist, but if even professional news sources make mistakes in the effort to be the first to publish...you can only imagine the damage someone with less training can do. Now that everything is digital, the rush to be first is more intense than ever. But journalism should be based on accuracy...not popularity and process.
When it comes to legal cases such as Amanda Knox's, an article can cause the public to "convict" someone of a crime before the trial is even finished...and when juries are involved that can be really dangerous. The media needs to be more careful because while they need readers and viewers, those readers and viewers also rely on them to tell the truth. Anyone can be affected by false news.

ABC News: The 'She-Devil' of Perugia