Journalist-source confidentiality doesn’t usually make headlines, but last month was an exception. President-elect Trump told Republicans to kill the PRESS Act — a bipartisan “shield” bill to protect reporters’ sources that passed the House unanimously. Journalists and press freedom advocates across the political spectrum hope he will reconsider.
Journalist Catherine Herridge’s case — the month’s other big source protection story — shows why. A federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 18 was alarmingly skeptical of the highly respected investigative journalist’s appeal of an order holding her in contempt of court for not burning sources. What’s worse, much of the hearing was held behind closed doors, outside the view of the very journalists whose rights the case threatens.
Herridge’s appeal arises from her refusal to reveal sources for reporting about a federal investigation into possible connections between the Chinese government and a university that received taxpayer funding. The president of the university, Yanping Chen, sued the FBI under the federal Privacy Act and subpoenaed Herridge for alleged communications with the FBI.
That means that in addition to the First Amendment reasons to protect Herridge’s sources, there are national security ones. Letting people suspected of connections to U.S. adversaries pry through American reporters’ notebooks sure seems like a bad idea. With Herridge’s case unfolding in the nation’s capital, its........