Would you go to prison?

This may have been asked on here before, but would you go to jail, as the two SF reporters seem bound to do, to protect a source, assuming, of course, that your source isn't some mafia hitman that you're pretty sure would kill you if you named names. In that case, jail is probably the better alternative, I suppose.

But would you go to jail for something like what the SF reporters are facing?

 

Depends.

How long are we talking? And is there a journalist segregation block?

 

The question was asked a day or two ago and fell off the front page. Now, 21 has brought it back on the Anything Goes page
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/30764/

But I'm glad I work a piddly desk shift and cover a piddly I-AA team where I don't think I'll ever really be presented with the jail-or-no-jail problem.

 

If I knew that naming my source would sincerely help to rid the game of baseball of performance enhancing drugs by helping the gov't get rid of the people supplying it and humiliating those who have taken it, quite possibly. But there is no guarantee these people will talk to the government or anyone else, and it goes against journalistic integrity to do so. I would need assurances that this would really help the game and society, because that is a bigger cause than keeping these particular sources confidential.

 

stay in too long and you'll need the Depends

 

Go to jail. Lionized in your profession. Hit the lecture circuit.

 

How's that work with the overtime? Cause considering the loot you could make, hell yeah i'd go to jail.

 

Yes, I would. If only for the principle of the matter. Not saying I would like it though. And hopefully it would not be one of those "federal pound-me-in-the-ass" prisons.

 

Hell yes I would! You know how bad-ass that is? The only thing more bad-ass than going to jail for story you wrote is writing a story that puts someone in jail, or gets someone released from jail. Plus, I'm pretty sure you don't get put in the pound-me-in-the-ass wing of the jail if you're a reporter refusing to give up a source. You're either in protective custody or hanging out with non-violent criminals (drunks, druggies, johns, hookers).

 

Which, as it happens, is the crowd most of us runs with anyway.

Bring it on.

On a serious note, I'd definitely go to jail, but not for the principle of the matter. Jail is just one of those things I'd like to try some time, only in a small dose. Kind of like the military. If that makes any sense.

 

Just wondering, but a lot of newspapers make writers clear sources with an editor (or editors) up the food chain. Is that the case with the SF guys? And if it is, why haven't their editors been similarly subpoenaed?

Another thought: Suppose the paper told you to name the names. Would you refuse?

 

Easier said than done, granted, but I'd go to jail.
The principal is an important one.