In today's world there is no shortage of moral dilemmas faced and failed by people in positions of power and influence. Just think about the public unfolding of the Hewlett-Packard spying scandal that we have been witnessing. One could say that powerful people lacking moral integrity are everywhere to be found.
In an area slightly more gray than cases like Hewlett-Packard internal spying, there is the ongoing issue of investigative reporters who refuse to give up their secret sources to the courts who subpoena them.
The list of journalists who are willing to endure jail time rather than reveal where they got confidential information continues to grow: Ann Radelat of the The (Jackson) Clarion-Ledger; Jennifer Henn of the The Scranton Times and its sister paper, The Tribune; and Philip Shenon and Judith Miller of The New York Times, among others.
The most recent addition to this ever-growing list are two investigative reporters for The San Francisco Chronicle, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. Following a federal court ruling last week, the two could be face up to 18 months in prison unless they reveal their sources for the grand jury testimony of baseball star Barry Bonds and other high-profile athletes.
The series of articles and book that Fainaru-Wada and Williams based in part on this testimony exposed the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) as a steroids ring that supplied drugs to professional athletes.
The reporters, who have sworn to never reveal their source or sources of information, have received widespread support from the public and parents of aspiring professional athletes. They were even thanked by President Bush for reporting on an issue that affects young Americans who might look to use steroids to achieve athletic prowess and dominance.
The journalistic service that these reporters, and others like them, have sought to perform seems to have been accomplished. The public knows the truth and the wrongdoers have been exposed. Yet a minefield of moral difficulties exists within the debate that has emerged. Therein lies the challenge facing not only these tenacious reporters, but the system of democracy.
Protected by their First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, journalists publicizing leaked information from closed court testimony and confidential internal documents risk sacrificing one moral good for another. They choose their interpretation of the integrity of journalism over the confidentiality of information within the courts and other arenas.
Both Chronicle reporters admitted in sworn testimony that they agree they are in contempt of court by not revealing their sources. But they would choose jail time over revealing their sources because it would endanger their livelihood and the future of their profession.
In their favor, one may argue the public good is being served: Future whistle-blowers may be less likely to step forward if they see they may eventually be exposed. But will closed courtroom testimony be at risk if those testifying know that what they say could be repeated to the entire world? The public also has an interest in the sanctity of court proceedings.
Such moral dilemmas can't be escaped, but in the end they don't argue against protecting journalists. In the clumsy workings of the American political system, freedom is served by each institution seeking its own self-interest. Public-spirited and wise office holders are preferred, but the ambitions of legislators, executives, and judges can be counted on to keep our system in balance. Journalism has emerged as a de facto fourth part of our system of checks and balances.
The heart of the journalist who braves legal penalties to get a story may not be pure. The desires for fame, influence, and money may exist right alongside more high-minded motives. But a journalist does not need to be pure to tell the public the truth.
A current proposal before congress would create a federal shield law to protect journalists from arbitrary subpoenas by courts.
Shield laws already exist in 31 states, but they extend protections to varying degrees and are subject to wide interpretation. They are legal measures strong enough to be evoked by journalists in courtrooms, but too weak to effect any real protections that are not subject to broad interpretation.
Fainaru-Wada and Williams will appeal the ruling that they be sent to prison, but they have never wavered from their vows of silence, even in the face of potentially severe personal loss.
Their motivations and objectives in reporting the testimony in the BALCO case may be said to be moral or mercenary, depending on which side of the fence one sits. But theirs and other journalists' commitment to telling a story the public needs to hear deserves a federal shield law that will serve the next generation of journalists willing to risk telling the truth.
At the same time, one may also hope for journalists who stick close to the public good no matter what the circumstances and who find their true shield in honorable motives.