Freedom of the Press in the Blogging Age

A Supreme Court case has upheld journalists' right to protect their sources, but when anyone with a Twitter page can break a story, who decides what a journalist is?

Journalists, and few other people apparently, were watching closely last week for the outcome of a Supreme Court case that ruled on Globe and Mail reporter Daniel Leblanc’s right to refuse to divulge the name of a source he used during his influential investigation into the sponsorship scandal. Polygone, a company being sued by the Conservative government for its involvement in the scandal, wanted to know the source’s identity in order to build its defence. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with Leblanc on Friday, but said similar cases need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Had the judgment gone the other way, says a Globe and Mail editorial, the Canadian press would have had to make their motto to “All the authorized news fit to print.” The Globe’s obviously pleased as punch that its reporter has been vindicated, so pleased in fact that it gloats about its superiority to online media: “In an era in which every blogger is a self-proclaimed journalist, the court clearly puts great stock in the organized media's ability to probe behind the closed doors of powerful institutions.”

The ruling was just, declares a Montreal Gazette editorial, because “(a)fter all, the public doesn't have a right to know everything about everything.” This is technically true, but not a frequently trumpeted opinion in today’s information-obsessed culture. The Gazette also likes the case-by-case approach, because “there is no real definition of who's a journalist and who's not — nor should there be.” Hence the high level of existential angst at the Mark office.

Only the Toronto Star is disappointed by the ruling. Its editors think that by refusing to recognize a blanket right for journalists to protect their sources the court didn’t go far enough. The ruling “still leaves journalists guessing whether they will be able to protect their sources for any given story, which is hardly ideal for investigative reporters. But for now, at least, that’s as far as the high court is prepared to go.”