The protection of sources is a cornerstone of journalism and in few places as in the United States this precept has been scrupulously respected, since it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But the case involving reporter Catherine Herridge opens some disturbing fissures. It turns out that this professional, founder of Fox News and recently fired from CBS, did a report on a Chinese scientist who was being investigated by the FBI (without charges being filed). The victim sued the federal government for allowing details of the searches on her to be leaked. To identify the source of the information leak, the judge requires Herridge to reveal its source: he argues that his right to protect it is not above the right of the scientist to be able to expose who publicly sold it.
Sign up for the newsletter Series All premieres and other pearls
Sign up for it
As much as Herridge is accused of being a clearly partisan journalist, in this case in favor of the Republicans, what must be assessed here is not her intentions, but the fact that the information she protects, even if it is leaked from interested way, it could have a public interest. Therefore, it is the public that must be defended, and attacking Herridge individually is an intolerable abuse that must be denounced. For him to be fined $800 a day, at a time when he has lost his job, is unacceptable pressure. Luckily he doesn’t have to pay them yet, because he can appeal, but the judge has already clearly decided that he wants to violate this basic principle of source protection. All in all, another step in the regression we are experiencing in terms of transparency and control of power in recent years.
2024-03-03 19:46:45
#inadmissible #maneuver #source #protection
