In recent months, federal courts have found several journalists in contempt for not revealing the identities of anonymous sources, but reporters in Lansing aren't balking.
In light of recent criminal contempt charges against Rhode Island broadcast journalist Jim Taricani and civil contempt charges against Judith Miller of The New York Times for not revealing the identities of sources during investigations, WLAJ-TV and WLNS-TV reporters in Lansing said they haven't changed their reporting strategies.
"We will still continue to go and cover what we feel is necessary," said Jim Fordyce, news director for WLAJ-TV, in Lansing. "I'm hoping that reporters will stand their ground and do what they have to do.
"It's their job."
Other area journalists agreed that reporters need to continue efforts to maintain the integrity of reporting.
"It's a principle that you have to uphold," said Phil Hendrix, news director at WLNS-TV, in Lansing. "When you want to protect your source, you have to do that.
"Your trust is on the line. Your credibility is on the line."
Hendrix said his reporters are aware that they could be called into court, but he said they haven't changed their reporting blueprints.
Local journalists have been subpoenaed in the past and some area officials say reporters should not have more rights than the average person.
"The Constitution's provision of freedom of the press does not mean that the press has any greater right to withhold information more than any other citizen," Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said.
Dunnings tested that notion in 1999 when he issued subpoenas to 18 news organizations, of which 11 refused, for information and photographs gathered during a riot on MSU's campus. Dunnings said the information would help identify rioters.
The State News and WLNS-TV were two of the news organizations that refused to give materials to the Ingham County prosecutor.
Hendrix said his news outlet must remain neutral to keep from becoming a target by investigators and the public.
"The reason why we wouldn't give up the videotape is we never want to be an agent for either side," Hendrix said. "We're there to report what's going on."
The state Supreme Court struck down Dunnings' request in 2000, stating that the Michigan Investigative Subpoena Act allows law enforcement agencies and officials to subpoena only previously published or broadcast materials or materials directly related to an investigation involving a member of a news organization.
Legislators in Michigan, 30 other states and the District of Columbia have passed shield laws, such as the Investigative Subpoena Act, to protect journalists in court.
Dunnings said if he had convened a state grand jury, then he could have successfully received the materials. But he added that convening a grand jury is inconvenient.
"[Journalists] feel very strongly that what they're doing is deserving of some sort of legal protection in terms of confidential sources, and I respect that," Dunnings said. "In a situation of a confidential informant, I would hope we could build a case in a traditional way.
"I'm not expecting the press to do my work for me."
He added that subpoenaing journalists is not his first option, but necessary in some cases. Dunnings reiterated he understands the importance of a free press, but the Constitution does not protect journalists from revealing information in court.
Opposite Dunnings statement, U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is trying to make a federal shield law a right for journalists in federal court cases. Dodd introduced a bill on Nov. 19 that would protect journalists from being forced to disclose their sources in a federal court, according to a statement released by Dodd's office.
"When the public's right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered," Dodd said in the statement.
Reporters have a long history of going to great lengths to protect their sources, and anything that can help journalists do their job without the threat of prosecution is a good thing, Hendrix said.
But others worry the immediate effect of recent cases could affect journalists' ability to do their jobs.
"(The subpoenas are) terrible because they're basically making it tougher for these journalists to continue to do their job," said Irwin Gratz, president of the Society of Professional Journalists. "I'm sure it's already having some chilling effect on perhaps some sources or even perhaps on some reporters.
"It may make some more gun-shy of dealing with sources on a confidential basis," he said. "It will dry up a lot of sources who might not want to take the risk of talking to a reporter."
Courts have asked journalists before to reveal sources, the most notable of which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Branzburg v. Hayes, Gratz said.
In the 1972 case, the high court ruled that the First Amendment does not provide journalists with absolute immunity from federal investigation. The court also said in some cases, journalists could keep their sources secret in a federal investigation, if prosecutors could seek evidence through alternate means.
But the current number of federal court requests for journalists to reveal anonymous sources is the highest in recent history, said Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for the First Amendment Center. The organization works to preserve the rights granted by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"It's very troubling that there are as many cases of journalists facing jail time as there are right now," said McMasters, who retired after 33 years in the journalism field. "I don't know of a time, at least in recent history, when there have been so many journalists hauled into court to reveal their sources by federal prosecutors and judges."
He added that journalists are not the only ones who will be affected by continued lawsuits.
"The big problem here is that if a journalist agrees to give up a source, sources will dry up and the public will be deprived important information - law enforcement and the courts themselves will lose a lot of information, if they compromise reporting,"
Speaking generally, forcing journalists to reveal anonymous sources could help keep information about government fraud and abuse from the public, said Nancy Costello, a former journalist and clinical professor of law at the MSU College of Law.
"It could happen in the future that a journalist will buckle, and down the line, those confidential sources will be less likely to give confidential information," she said, "If journalists are the fourth estate, that means they are the watchdog of government, they are the ones able to get the information and print it."
