Beyond the scope


udge Peter Charleton’s inquiry into the alleged smearing of Sergeant Maurice McCabe is shining a spotlight on the confidentiality of Garda sources in Ireland (see box). The judge has not questioned journalistic


of the law J


Ronan Brady looks at the ethics of protecting sources


conform to justice but squeeze truth out as a priority, as can happen in libel cases. At the same time, journalists do not cease to be


confidentiality in general but did ask if any privilege extended to sources “motivated by detraction or calumny” instead of by “the public interest”. Source protection enables the public to get information it


would not otherwise know. However, it’s more than a means to an end – it’s a solemn promise by one individual to shield another, an ethical act in itself. For journalists, Judge Charleton’s inquiry has huge


implications. The protection of confidential sources is one of our bedrock principles. The NUJ’s code of conduct bluntly states: “A journalist protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.” No ifs, no buts. We’ve always said – as Judge Charleton does


– that source protection “belongs” to the source. Many of our members have gone further by bearing the consequences. Journalists such as Kevin O’Kelly have gone to jail rather than breach this principle. However, if principles are important for media ethics, so are consequences. It’s very hard to argue an ethical case for continuing to keep secret the identity of someone who intends to commit murder, for example. As Professor Chris Frost of the NUJ’s ethics council wrote, there “are times when keeping a source secret may not be the moral thing to do”. The duty underlying all journalism ethics appears to be expressed in the first principle of our code of conduct, pledging us to protect media freedom, freedom of expression and, crucially, “the right of the public to be informed”. That is why we protect sources. It’s a kind of collective promise. If one journalist breaks it, all potential whistleblowers will have second thoughts and the effectiveness of our collective commitment to them will be weakened. Our code imposes a special duty on journalists to ensure


that the truth appears, insofar as we can. If we do not use our weight in the defence of whistleblowers, their accounts may get lost among ostensibly respectable values such as “the interests of justice”, for example. Corporate concerns may


14 | theJournalist


journalists when a source seeks a promise of confidentiality. Our duties include trying not to be deceived, however difficult that might be in practice. All sorts of lies are told to and then ignored by journalists. We are free to refuse to protect a source whom we mistrust. Ethics usually requires us to weigh up


competing duties, as Judge Charleton’s question does. He is asking: “How does it benefit the public if a journalist is turned into ‘an instrument of naked deceit’?”


A case from Minnesota in 1982 raised issues


that have some relevance to us today. During the final week of the campaign for state governorship that year, Republican campaign adviser Dan Cohen contacted reporter Bill Salisbury of the St Paul Pioneer Press. At a café in the state capitol building, Cohen offered Salisbury documents which, he said “may or may not relate to a candidate in the upcoming election” (as Salisbury remembered nine years later). Cohen’s proviso was “that my name will not appear in any material in connection with this, and you will also agree that you’re not going to pursue with me a question of who my source is”. Salisbury asked a few perfunctory questions about the material, which Cohen refused to answer. The journalist then gave the promise. The material showed that the Democratic candidate for


lieutenant-governor, Marlene Johnson, had been convicted for shoplifting 12 years before. When Salisbury contacted Johnson, she said she’d stolen $6 worth of sewing supplies at a time when she was emotionally distraught and that a judge later expunged this conviction from the record.


Salisbury and his city


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28