New Jersey Shield Law Article Analysis
News Critique of Article: “Effect on Jersey Shield Law is broadened for Reporters” by Donald Janson, New York Times, May 7, 1982.
The Shield Law provides reporters with an entitlement to a powerful privilege. That privi-lege gives reporters the right to disseminate information to the public without revealing the identity of their sources. However, certain extreme circumstances do not guarantee the same protection. In these circumstances the law does not protect information published with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. 1 The purpose of this review is to conclude whether news is objective or bias, and if some sources can be justified under First Amendment values.
The public figures in a series of New Jersey cases thought
a couple of journalists were guilty of malicious reporting. The New Jersey Supreme Court did not believe the public figures in both cases had a legitimate case to prove false information was published. The Court ruled (6-1) in favor of the state’s shield law for both cases. This gave the journalists the right to protect the anonymity of their sources.
Journalists have an obligation to report news to the public. The basic duty of a journalist is to provide clear and honest information to the masses. The reporter can run the risk of jeopardizing their ability to report by revealing the identity of their sources. This is why some sources can be justified under First Amendment principles. Cases like these that receive a protection clause strengthen the essence of objective reporting.
There are instances when revealing the identity of sources is necessary. Donald Janson added this contrasting to add depth to the conversation. Janson highlighted that the Supreme Court voted that a reporter's privilege against disclosure of sources is not absolute in criminal cases. In these cases where imminent harm is a factor of concern, any information a journalist withholds should be revealed because it interferes with their citizen duties.
Janson ended this article with Justice Pashman saying, “this court must decide whether the shield law allows news persons who are sued for libel to refuse to disclose their sources and edito-rial processes that can lead to a publication of the alleged libel.” (p.2) The court should allow a newsperson to refuse a disclosure on their sources if the plaintiff can’t prove that the information published is false.
The Shield Law provides reporters with an entitlement to a powerful privilege. That privi-lege gives reporters the right to disseminate information to the public without revealing the identity of their sources. However, certain extreme circumstances do not guarantee the same protection. In these circumstances the law does not protect information published with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. 1 The purpose of this review is to conclude whether news is objective or bias, and if some sources can be justified under First Amendment values.
The public figures in a series of New Jersey cases thought
a couple of journalists were guilty of malicious reporting. The New Jersey Supreme Court did not believe the public figures in both cases had a legitimate case to prove false information was published. The Court ruled (6-1) in favor of the state’s shield law for both cases. This gave the journalists the right to protect the anonymity of their sources.
Journalists have an obligation to report news to the public. The basic duty of a journalist is to provide clear and honest information to the masses. The reporter can run the risk of jeopardizing their ability to report by revealing the identity of their sources. This is why some sources can be justified under First Amendment principles. Cases like these that receive a protection clause strengthen the essence of objective reporting.
There are instances when revealing the identity of sources is necessary. Donald Janson added this contrasting to add depth to the conversation. Janson highlighted that the Supreme Court voted that a reporter's privilege against disclosure of sources is not absolute in criminal cases. In these cases where imminent harm is a factor of concern, any information a journalist withholds should be revealed because it interferes with their citizen duties.
Janson ended this article with Justice Pashman saying, “this court must decide whether the shield law allows news persons who are sued for libel to refuse to disclose their sources and edito-rial processes that can lead to a publication of the alleged libel.” (p.2) The court should allow a newsperson to refuse a disclosure on their sources if the plaintiff can’t prove that the information published is false.