• Chris, thanks for the reply, I understand your position, and could support a reasonable protection law.  If it was not for the news media and a undisclosed source, President Nixon probably would have never resigned.

    February 11, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.

  • Alton,

    Thank you for raising this point. The press association is not seeking an absolute privilege. The key point here: Lawyers would have to show they can't get the information from another source. In most cases, subpoenas are used as an excuse by lazy lawyers or as a club against the media for reporting embarrassing information.

    If a journalist were somehow the only source of information about a deadly crime or terrorism, certainly prosecutors could compel that person to testify.

    Please keep raising any objections you have. This is an important discussion. I'll provide additional information as I get it and as the legislation moves forward.

    February 11, 2009 at 8:35 a.m.

  • I could never support an absolute all inclusive law of protection.  If the reporter's source reveals information about their past, present, or future involvement in deadly crimes or attempt to overthrow the government, or they have insider information on these matters, the news reporter's source should not be protected.
    I am often concern about government "leaked" information from an unknown source.  If the information can be verified, I am OK with it.

    February 10, 2009 at 11:08 p.m.