Affirmative Case: January/February 1999

A journalist receives a phone call at his office one day from a secretary at a fortune 500 company. She informs him that the company has been cheating on its taxes and costing the public millions each year. She says that she thinks people should know about it but she wishes to remain anonymous because her job is at stake. Now the journalist has to make a decision: does he tell the people and save them money and risk himself going to jail or revealing the secretary and make her lose her job. Or he could not tell the public and cost them millions and not endanger himself or the secretary. There are no practical results to this problem. It is scenarios such as these why I stand Resolved: that in the united states a journalist's right to shield confidential sources ought to be protected by the first amendment.

To make sure the resolution is clear I offer the following definitions taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and the constitution:
*journalist- an editor or other professional writer for a periodical.
*right- in accordance with justice, law, or morality, fitting, proper
*shield-to defend, protect
*confidential-communicated in confidence
*sources- one that supplies information
*ought- to require
*First Amendment- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For today's round I will support the double value of knowledge and safety. When we uphold the resolution knowledge will be given from the sources to the reporters and the public. Also, the sources and the reporters will be protected and possibly protect the public from scandals that could hurt them.

The best criteria for weighing the values in today's round is pragmatism. Pragmatism is defined as the philosophy based on the conception that the truth of a doctrine is to be judged by its practical consequences. When we uphold the resolution, we have the most practical results because the public is informed and the journalists and their sources are protected.

I will uphold the resolution with three areas of analysis; the effect of the resolution on the press, the confidential sources, and the public.

Let's first direct our attention to contention one: The effect of the resolution on the press.
The first amendment states freedom of the press. Webster's Dictionary defines freedom as liberty, immunity, and indecorous familiarity. This immunity or protection allows the press to gather news. Journalists need sources to gather knowledge and often these sources wish to remain anonymous. As Justice Potter said, "The right to gather news implies, in turn, a right to a confidential relationship between a reporter and his source. This proposition follows as a matter of simple logic once three factual predicates are recognized:(1) newsmen require informants to gather news;(2) confidentiality- the promise or understanding that names or certain aspects of communications will be kept off record- is essential to the creation and maintenance of a news-gathering relationship with informants; and (3) an unbridled subpoena power- the absence of a constitutional right protecting, in any way, a confidential relationship from compulsory process- will deter sources from divulging information or deter reporters from gathering and publishing information." So when reporters are not allowed to have a confidential relationship with sources their right to gather news is destroyed. This makes it very hard for them to gather knowledge with the worry their safety or going to jail. When it is protected, however, it is good for the reporters because sources will divulge information and allow them to do their jobs. But for the sources to give the knowledge to reporters there must be some incentive which brings me to

Contention two: the effect of the resolution on the confidential sources.
These sources often have knowledge that could be valuable to reporters and the public. For example, if an engineer working at a car company finds a glitch that could kill 1 out of every 200 cars and the company knows that it would look like an accident and proceed with shipment of the cars anyway that engineer might feel morally obliged to tell people. However, if he has a wife and three kids to support, he may not be willing to tell people because he would be afraid of losing his job and not being able to support his family. As Justice Potter Stewart once said, "[Sources] may have information valuable to the public discourse, yet each may be willing to relate that information only in confidence to a reporter whom he trusts, either because of excessive caution or because of reasonable fear of reprisals or censure for unorthodox views." If the sources were protected, the public would be informed and safer while the source still have his safety and his job. If we do not protect these sources the public may be hurt as well as I will show in my

third contention:
The effect on the resolution on the public. If journalist's are not allowed to protect their confidential sources the public will be hurt because they will not be informed and they risk losing their rights. First, the public needs to have knowledge. If the confidential sources can not divulge their information the general public may be hurt by what they don't know. Also, when we start limiting the rights of reporters where do we stop. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once stated, "The liberty of the press is no greater and no less than the liberty of every citizen of the United States." So when we limit the rights of the press we are limiting the rights of every citizen of the United States. If we allow journalists to shield their sources the public will be informed and keep their rights. If we don't allow journalist's to protect their sources the public could be hurt and lose their rights. Obviously, allowing journalists to protect their sources would have the most practical and best results for society.

In conclusion, I have given you three specific reasons to affirm the resolution.[recap as time allows] For these reasons we must affirm the resolution because we need to have knowledge and safety. As James Madison once said " The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."

I am now open for cross examination.