Privileged Communications

December 2, 1959

Report Outline
Protection of News Sources in Courts
Position of the Press in Other Forums
Recognized Confidential Communications

Protection of News Sources in Courts

A reporter as a rule will decline to tell a court, a legislative committee, or other inquirer the name of a person who has given him information used in a news story without attribution. Yet the so-called newsmen's privilege has no more than limited legal standing. Neither the common law nor the federal or state constitutions recognize a right on the part of reporters to refuse to identify a news source at the bidding of competent authority. Certain state statutes alone extend the privilege to journalists within the jurisdiction of state courts.

All the same, most reporters will go to jail rather than disclose the identity of an informant, and the newspapers for which they work will almost invariably support them to the hilt. Paradoxically, however, reporters and publishers alike are of two minds about the advisability of seeking general statutory recognition of a right to protect news sources. The balance of opinion seems to oppose such protection as possibly endangering full enjoyment of constitutional guarantees of press freedom. Meanwhile, certain communications in other areas have been enjoying a privileged status that has come under question only in recent years.

Absence of Basic Right to Refuse Evidence

Legal scholars and professional groups long have debated to what extent a pledge of privacy or compact of secrecy should be allowed to prevail against demands for exposure of the truth in a court of justice. Recent judicial decisions have been remolding the concept of privileged communications between attorney and client, physician and patient, clergyman and penitent, and husband and wife. They have also established some legal guidelines on claims of privilege in the practice of journalism.

ISSUE TRACKER for Related Reports
Journalism, Newspapers, and the Media
Jan. 28, 2022  Misinformation and the Media
Oct. 02, 2020  Social Media Platforms
Sep. 18, 2020  The News Media
Aug. 24, 2018  Conspiracy Theories
Jun. 09, 2017  Trust in Media
May 30, 2014  Digital Journalism
May 03, 2013  Media Bias
Apr. 26, 2013  Free Speech at Risk
Apr. 12, 2013  Combat Journalism
Nov. 2010  Press Freedom
Oct. 08, 2010  Journalism Standards in the Internet Age
Feb. 05, 2010  Press Freedom
Mar. 27, 2009  Future of Journalism Updated
Jun. 09, 2006  Blog Explosion Updated
Jan. 20, 2006  Future of Newspapers
Apr. 08, 2005  Free-Press Disputes
Oct. 15, 2004  Media Bias
Oct. 10, 2003  Media Ownership Updated
Dec. 25, 1998  Journalism Under Fire
Jun. 05, 1998  Student Journalism
Sep. 20, 1996  Civic Journalism
Sep. 23, 1994  Courts and the Media
Aug. 24, 1990  Hard Times at the Nation's Newspapers
Jan. 19, 1990  Finding Truth in the Age of ‘Infotainment’
Aug. 18, 1989  Libel Law: Finding the Right Balance
Jun. 06, 1986  Magazine Trends
Oct. 12, 1984  News Media and Presidential Campaigns
Jul. 15, 1983  State of American Newspapers
Oct. 23, 1981  High Cost of Libel
Dec. 23, 1977  Media Reforms
Mar. 11, 1977  News Media Ownership
Jun. 21, 1974  Access to the Media
Dec. 20, 1972  Newsmen's Rights
Aug. 16, 1972  Blacks in the News Media
Dec. 15, 1971  Magazine Industry Shake-Out
Jul. 18, 1969  Competing Media
Sep. 02, 1964  Politicians and the Press
Dec. 04, 1963  Libel Suits and Press Freedom
Jan. 09, 1963  Newspaper Mergers
Dec. 20, 1961  Reading Boom: Books and Magazines
Dec. 02, 1959  Privileged Communications
Apr. 25, 1956  Newsprint Deficit
May 06, 1953  Government and the Press
Sep. 21, 1948  Press and State
Sep. 05, 1947  Newsprint Supply
Mar. 26, 1947  Facsimile Newspapers
Dec. 10, 1945  World Press Freedom
May 01, 1940  New Experiments in Newspaper-Making
Nov. 04, 1933  Press Freedom Under the Recovery Program