To the Point

Should Reporters be Forced to Reveal 'Confidential' Sources?

In recent weeks, there's been much debate about news stories that revealed secret strategies in the war on terror. The issue of confidential sources is just as timely as it was in January, when we first broadcast this program. Confidential sources provide reporters with information only if they're promised they won't be identified. But in 1972, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect the reporter's promise of anonymity in federal cases. For the past 30 years, prosecutors have been reluctant to pursue reporters unless there's no other way to obtain information they need. Now, that appears to be changing. Why do sources demand anonymity? What will be lost if they have to come out of the closet? Who should decide what the public has a right to know? (This segment was originally broadcast January 11 on To the Point.) Making News: Charters of Freedom Survive Flood at National ArchivesThis 230th Fourth of July will be celebrated today on the steps of the National Archives building, but the building itself is closed because of flooding. What about the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence? Are they safe? We hear more about recovery efforts at the National Archives from Paul Schwartzman, who's following the story for the Washington Post.Reporter's Notebook: America's Promise RestoredHarlan Ullman, senior advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is no fan of how the war in Iraq--or the war on terror--are being conducted. In broader terms, he says America's government is "dysfunctional," a crisis that's "easy to define" but "difficult to fix." Now, the man who made "shock and awe" a household word offers some proposals for engaging an apathetic citizenry to demand accountability in America's Promise Restored.