At no circumstance should the news reporters be pinned down to reveal the sources of their reports. For instance, corruption in high places needs a form of first hand information from internal participants, who give evidences of the happenings. On the other hand, investigative cases that involve court evidences need clarification from eye witnesses, who might relay a deviation from the real account for fear of victimization. Such cases rely upon evidences obtainable through news reporting to synthesize the real happening, while the information is based on evidences given in the confinement of the news reporter and the witness. This shows that continued revelation of such sources would instill fear in the source provider, thus eroding the potentiality of the source. This would also lead to blanketing of the case under consideration, in which the judgmental aspect would not be linear with the happenings on the ground (General Books LLC 12).
Restricting news reporters to reveal the sources of information is not only a form of jeopardy to confidentiality plea of the source but also a crucifixion of prevalence of the informatory process. This paper negates any attempts of restricting news reporters to reveal the sources of their information.
Why News Reports Should Not Reveal the Sources of Information
Firstly, news reporters should conceal the sources of their information since there is need for the creation of confidence between the source and the reporter. By consideration, the source of information includes the participants, who relay the information under the confines of confidentiality pleas from the reporter. This shows that revelation of such sources is not only jeopardy to the confidentiality plea but also a form of betrayal of the informer. With prior knowledge that the reporter would reveal the source of information, the informer is restricted to concealing some elements of truth, which in turn jeopardizes the research criteria. The consequent judgment based upon such concealed information would not be in line with the truth, which relays a bad account of conviction of the victims under question (Sloan and Parcell 34).
Secondly, the ideology of concealing the source of information instills the moral good of continued sourcing, where a revelation of the consequent source of the information would mean a crucifixion to the whole research source. This continued sourcing of information occurs as a result of the build up of confidence between the informer and the reporter, where concealing of such information gives the reporter the chance of further clarification to give the line of diversion between the truth and what is perceived. By chance, if the news reporters are restricted to reveal the source of information, the act would put an end to any advances of continued sourcing due to fear of victimization. This would also lead to lack of sound grounds for judgment and consequent victimization of the offender. Moreover, it is difficult to bring the offenders to book without proper analysis of first hand information, which is only obtainable through concealing of the source (Sloan and Parcell 36).
On the other hand, cases involving those in power happen under the constraints of confidentiality between the participating agents, in which case, the source of such information risks the conviction of sabotage from the contenders. For instance, the planning of an assassination and murder would elucidate the need for concealing the informer since such revelations are risky not only to the life of the informer but also to the reporter. Such incidences relay information that might be useful in prevention of a planed course of harm to the community through prior revelation of the incident. Such actions prove the validity of the investigative agents, where an action might be taken before a reaction in order to contain formidable situations (Gibbs and Warhover 320).
Consequently, concealing of the source of information is by virtue a form of displaying the privacy protection act as a practice of the law. Through revealing the source of information, reporters would have violated the privacy protection act, which stipulates the right of privacy to the informer through concealing the source. Once this act is violated, the end result would be a consequent filing of a case that might be argued in favor of the informer. This results in a lowered morale for the consequent process of research into violations of the law evident in both the public and private sector. This bears an impact on the morals of the society, since participation in crime would not be strictly monitored bearing in mind that the news reporters shed light to the morals of the society (Gibbs and Warhover 320).
Restricting the news reporters to the situational mandate of revealing the sources of information is detrimental to the whole process of research as a quest into the just process of acquisition of knowledge. This implies that there is need for concealing of the evidence of the source of information as a mode of elucidating continued research based on underground moves. By consideration, the act of relaying news is not only informative but also investigative, where depiction of pictures and interviews gives the happenings, which aid in the process of sound judgment by law agencies. This shows that for the continued airing of news as a definition of a democratic right, the source of this information should be concealed in order to give the informer the chance to pursue valid investigations without fear of victimization. The ideology of concealing of information about the informer elucidates continued cooperation between the investigative agents and the reporter, which proves the viability of the thesis.