Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on BRANZBURG V HAYES & SHIELD LAWS. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 6-page paper discusses whether journalists can guarantee confidentiality for sources that don't want to be named. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
6 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AS43_MTshielaws.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
reporting is common for background information. Furthermore, sources who dont want to be named generally can work behind "anonymous sources suggest" or "a source who did not be named says"
types of quotes. But what happens if a journalist is hauled into court and told he/she must divulge sources, or face contempt?
The news stories are pretty clear about this; the journalist stands by his/her sources and ends up in jail. This is because according to constitutional law, journalists, just like everyone
else, have an obligation, when called before a grand jury, to answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation. Branzburg v. Hayes In
the landmark Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes, a narrow majority determined that the First Amendment doesnt mean a newspaper reporter is exempt from answering questions about a criminal investigation.
In other words, if he/she conceals facts from the grand jury because of confidentiality (and this includes concealing sources), this could be considered obstruction of justice, and therefore the individual
could be considered in contempt of court. The argument that Branzburg (and Pappas, in another case) made was that many times, to gather the news, its often necessary to agree
not to reveal sources. The petitioners argued that if journalists are forced to reveal confidences to grand juries, it could mean that other confidential sources of other reporters might be
deterred from giving information. The petitioners brought in the First Amendment, claiming that this particular amendment guarantees the free flow of information.
The Supreme Courts arguments were sympathetic, the majority agreed that free speech press is absolutely essential in a democracy, and that news gathering does qualify for First Amendment protection.
...