By: (AP) Comments following decision by federal judge to hold five reporters in contempt for refusing to identify their sources for stories about Wen Ho Lee:
"I am disappointed in this ruling. An essential part of a free press is a reporter's ability to gather news from individuals who at times request that their identities be shielded. I believe strongly that when a reporter gives a source the assurance that his or her confidentiality will be protected, he cannot go back on his word. To do so would be a disservice to the source, destroy the reporter's credibility with future sources and hinder essential newsgathering." -- Associated Press reporter H. Josef Hebert
___
"Reporters' ability to quote sources anonymously is a fundamental and crucial tool in getting important information to the public. Courts have held repeatedly that journalists can protect their sources. APME would hope that that principle ultimately will prevail." -- Stuart Wilk, vice president and associate editor of The Dallas Morning News and president of the Associated Press Managing Editors
___
"We are planning to appeal immediately. We are gratified that Judge Jackson found that our journalists acted in good faith. The Times continues to believe, as we have for decades, that confidential sources are critical for us to give the public as broad a perspective as possible on the important issues of the day, particularly when they concern the actions of government. Reporters simply could not do their jobs if they could be forced to identify their confidential sources." -- George Freeman, assistant general counsel, The New York Times Co.
___
"The ruling seriously jeopardizes the press' ability to report about our government's actions and the public's right to know. The public is best served by the full and free exercise of First Amendment rights. We plan to appeal the ruling." -- Martha Goldstein, vice president of communications, Los Angeles Times.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here