One of the major issues in journalism today is the releasing of sources from a piece of work. The first amendment is extremely valuable in the eyes of the public and the government, and one of, if not the most important right given in our Bill of Rights. It is understood that by freedom of speech the writer can publish what they believe without fear of being persecuted for what is written. Under that understood concept its believed that the sources are also protected by the first amendment.
A prime example of this issue was the case of the revealing of Valerie Plame's identity. Plame was a CIA agent, who was married to Joe Wilson, who publicly disagreed with many of President Bush's views on the Iraq war. She became one of the most famous spies in the world. The fact that she was outed ruined her career and almost her life. "After the outing, said Wolf, "her career was over, she knew it was over, and certainly her contacts were put in jeopardy . . . and her family was put at risk." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801172_2.html) Valerie Plame's identity was revealed to the world by infamous, Washington Post writer, Robert Novak. Novak was questioned by several federal committees about who his source was. Novak kept his source a secret and faced the possibility of jail time if he did not reveal his source. In the end Novak caved and revealed his source, Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's cheif of staff.
These kinds of incidents are debated constantly. Was putting Plame's life (and her family's) at risk really news worthy? Did it help the public in any real way? And was it really fair for Novak to face consequences for not revealing his source? Journalism has a very gray area of what is right and what it wrong. Morally and legally.
