Internet reporter under scrutiny in state with no shield law -- Hawaii

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18581

(Zimmerman story) 

A 2007 civil court case involving an Internet reporter, documented by the Associated Press on May 21, 2007, raised two rather difficult questions: 1. Should journalists have the right to keep information they obtain from courts, and 2. Does an Internet reporter have the right to the same protections as a traditional reporter? 

Attorney William McCorriston, in a lawsuit presented by landowner James Pflueger over the failure of the Kaloko Dam in Hawaii that resulted in a 20-foot wave and seven deaths, claimed Malia Zimmerman from Hawaiiireporter.com didn't.

“It seems to me that if a blogger is a journalist, everyone can produce a blog and never be subject to a subpoena,” the AP quoted McCorriston as saying.

Zimmerman, an editor and reporter for the Web site, said she does legitimate journalistic work and reports at higher standards than some run-of-the-mill blogger. 

“It's not the medium you publish in, it's what you do with that information,” Zimmerman said, according to the AP. 

The judge, Gary Chang, ordered Zimmerman to submit to questioning by oath under McCorriston, but allowed her to refuse to answer. The court would later decide whether or not it would force Zimmerman to comply. 

If I were Zimmerman, I believe I would comply with the court's wishes. Seven people died as a result of the failure of this bridge. Fault must be placed. Here, many “newspaper people today are ethically confused,” as Philip Meyer wrote in his essay, “The reporter's right to testify,” in Elliot D. Cohen's book, Philosophical Issues in Journalism. 

First, however, I'd want to make sure the desired information couldn't be accessed by any other reasonable means. Could the prosecution carry out the same investigation I did?

Also, I would have to assess the potential ramifications for my sources. Would I be seriously betraying their trust and compromising their well-being? 

One main argument against my compliance would be the “chilling effect,” as reporter Roy Greenslade noted as he covered an ongoing court case in the Oct. 6 edition of the London Evening Standard.

“If reporters reveal the provenance of sensitive information given to them on the grounds of confidentiality, sources will dry up,” he wrote. 

My decision would have to consider potential future consequences. 

Finally, I would assess what would be accomplished by the surrendering of my notes. Is my information essential to the solving of the case? Would the families involved receive justice? If not, I would probably refuse.

That aside, if my compliance would help little and the issue became simply a matter of privileging traditional reporters over Internet reporters, I would fiercely refuse. As long as I was adhering to the same standards of fact checking and rigor as a traditional journalist, I should be treated equally. 

Ultimately, I would probably comply. As Meyer wrote, 

“If the newspaper were truly strong, perhaps it could afford to be more routinely helpful.”

Sometimes, acting as a responsible, willing member of society should trump journalistic privileges.