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?