Revealing Source - Advice Please

[HushHush]

Question for journalists and bloggers. I have a situation where someone has posted a comment on my blog releasing personal medical records about a reality show contestant. I've password protected the posting at this time so no one else can read it - but I've been asked to turn over the details of this person to the contestants lawyer {name, IP address, location, etc ....}

Would this be seen as revealing a source? This person did break the HIPPA law ... and I want to cooperate without losing credibility as a writer.

What would you do?

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by HushHush:
Question for journalists and bloggers. I have a situation where someone has posted a comment on my blog releasing personal medical records about a reality show contestant. I've password protected the posting at this time so no one else can read it - but I've been asked to turn over the details of this person to the contestants lawyer {name, IP address, location, etc ....}

Would this be seen as revealing a source? This person did break the HIPPA law ... and I want to cooperate without losing credibility as a writer.

What would you do?Did you promise this person you'd protect their identity?

Do you make a general promise to your posters that you will protect them no matter what?

Lots of journalists reveal sources all the time, when that source doesn't ASK for anonymity BEFORE the conversation.

I know if I post a harmless comment I can expect you not to tell the world that I am really George Clooney. BUT if I violate a federal law in the interest of harming someone else... I say you spill the beans.

As for your credibility... considering your lust for Dyckerson, you know that's been shot for months. ;)

[HushHush]

LOL .... I only lust for Dyckersons humor smile.gif Thanks!

and ... while in the past I have never revealed sources ... no one has broken any laws. Anyone who sends me insider information knows up front that I could post it on my blog ... and if asked not to reveal their identity I honor that request. This particular individual never asked me to protect their true identity - and I never said that I would.

That makes me feel a bit better about handing over the name.

[ November 10, 2006, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: HushHush ]

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by HushHush:
LOL .... I only lust for Dyckersons humor smile.gif Thanks!

and ... while in the past I have never revealed sources ... no one has broken any laws. Anyone who sends me insider information knows up front that I could post it on my blog ... and if asked not to reveal their identity I honor that request. This particular individual never asked me to protect their true identity - and I never said that I would.

That makes me feel a bit better about handing over the name.You yourself said they violated the HIPPA law... believe me... the feds take that VERY seriously.

You should also take all the info off your web... even password protected you are sharing it with your registered members and that makes you an accomplice.

[Another side]

There's a couple of issues, here:

1. You don't know that your source is telling the truth. Trusted sources are one thing; anonymous ones, another, and the information should be thorougly checked before using it.

2. I can't quite figure whether you've already used the info and NOW you're being asked for your source ... or whether you're contemplating using it and getting your ducks in a row beforehand.

3. Revealing a source is NEVER a good idea. If you think your source will shrug and say, "Oh ... I didn't ask that she not turn me over to federal authorities, so it's OK," I think you're wrong. And your source will tell others and bad news travels fast. You'd really be putting your reputation on the line, in my view, and I don't think it's worth it. At the very least, put it off as long as possible and talk to your source about it.

4. Are you certain HIPPA laws were violated? I don't know them inside and out ... but do they forbid the release of medical information by anyone or just those in certain positions (i.e., hospital nurses, doctors and PR people?) Again, that's a question ... I don't know. Either way, I'm not so sure the HIPPA violations are that far up on the "to-do" list for the feds ... I haven't heard of any violators being prosecuted (though I suppose someone will now post a link illustrating precisely that.)

[Lazlo Toth]

I reveal sources all the time. I say, "So and so says this is the case." Or "So and so released this report today."

I don't, however, reveal sources when I promised them confidentiality. The issue is not whether you will reveal a source, but whether you will reveal a confidential source.

In your case, the person does not sound to me like a source. And even if he/she is, it doesn't sound like a source to whom you've promised confidentiality explicitly.

[McCovey Cove Returns]

Did you promise the "source" of this information confidentiality? It all depends upon the cirumstances and how this informatiom was communicated, so to speak.

Also it might not be a bad idea to alert the folks who host your blog what's going on. The last thing you want is them to flip out because a lawyer is after something that was posted on your blog. They may also have some advice for you.

Edited to fix a typo.

[ November 10, 2006, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: News Vampire ]

[Another side]

Originally posted by Lazlo Toth:
I reveal sources all the time. I say, "So and so says this is the case." Or "So and so released this report today."

I don't, however, reveal sources when I promised them confidentiality. The issue is not whether you will reveal a source, but whether you will reveal a confidential source.

In your case, the person does not sound to me like a source. And even if he/she is, it doesn't sound like a source to whom you've promised confidentiality explicitly.Agree, mostly, with one small distinction: I don't think whether a promise of confidentially was delivered is the end-all. If you, the reporter, attribute information to a source you know wouldn't have wanted to be quoted, you might win the battle ("I didn't promise!") but you're going to lose the war -- he or she will STILL feel like you screwed them, and you'll pay for that.

[HushHush]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name Is A Genius:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HushHush:
LOL .... I only lust for Dyckersons humor smile.gif Thanks!

and ... while in the past I have never revealed sources ... no one has broken any laws. Anyone who sends me insider information knows up front that I could post it on my blog ... and if asked not to reveal their identity I honor that request. This particular individual never asked me to protect their true identity - and I never said that I would.

That makes me feel a bit better about handing over the name.You yourself said they violated the HIPPA law... believe me... the feds take that VERY seriously.

You should also take all the info off your web... even password protected you are sharing it with your registered members and that makes you an accomplice.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh no. Even my registered members don't have this password! It's up there for the contestant who was mentioned to see. Once she's finished with it - it will come down.

[HushHush]

Originally posted by Another side:
There's a couple of issues, here:

1. You don't know that your source is telling the truth. Trusted sources are one thing; anonymous ones, another, and the information should be thorougly checked before using it.

2. I can't quite figure whether you've already used the info and NOW you're being asked for your source ... or whether you're contemplating using it and getting your ducks in a row beforehand.

3. Revealing a source is NEVER a good idea. If you think your source will shrug and say, "Oh ... I didn't ask that she not turn me over to federal authorities, so it's OK," I think you're wrong. And your source will tell others and bad news travels fast. You'd really be putting your reputation on the line, in my view, and I don't think it's worth it. At the very least, put it off as long as possible and talk to your source about it.

4. Are you certain HIPPA laws were violated? I don't know them inside and out ... but do they forbid the release of medical information by anyone or just those in certain positions (i.e., hospital nurses, doctors and PR people?) Again, that's a question ... I don't know. Either way, I'm not so sure the HIPPA violations are that far up on the "to-do" list for the feds ... I haven't heard of any violators being prosecuted (though I suppose someone will now post a link illustrating precisely that.)Well ... it's a bit different in that I didn't write the information. This person posted a comment on my blog which revealed details of someones medical chart. Details only someone with access to that chart could have. AND this person e-mailed me seperately with their true identity from their work e-mail address - all verifiable. So .. they put the information out there themselves. I'd just be sharing their REAL name.

[east coast producer]

I don't believe HIPPA applies to anyone except for the caretakers of records. You're not violating HIPPA by having the information; whomever obtained the information may have. Google HIPPA and find out.

Being a "journalist" who writes a blog is a gray area. SPJ and other major journalism organizations supported that California blogger who taped something being thrown at a cop car or something, though.

Does your state have journalist shield law? I don't recollect your state's shield law, if any, from my time working there.

My state recognizes a journlist's priviledge by statute and is as strong a lawyer's or doctor's .. but I have had to have promised confidentiality to the source as part of a newsgathering process. I can only be compelled to testify to information I've printed or broadcasted.

Ask a lawyer for advice. My advice would be to ask them to serve you with a subpoena if you're claiming to be a journalist who obtained the information while newsgathering. Once you're served, release it --- unless your state has a shield law that applies to bloggers and you promised confidentiality to that individual. If your state doesn't have a shield law that's been applied to blogger AND you're promised confidentiality to this individual, then it's up to you if you want to make a point in principle and let a judge to find you in contempt.

An after-the-fact promise by a journalist or a request from an interviewee of confidentiality or that what he just said is suddenly "off the record" is to late. The agreement must be reached before the information is shared with a journalist.

But my advice is free. And it's worth as much.

[ November 10, 2006, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: east coast of hell producer ]

[YourMomsBox]

Is a blog considered a formal journalism outlet - are are bloggers considered journalists?

While it may not make a difference from an ethical standpoint... it very well may - from a legal one.

Not sure if a shield law (if there's one on the books in your area) would even remotely cover a blogger.

The lawyer may very well get a judge to compel you to reveal the source.

[Another side]

I had something similar happen. In one instance, someone sent in a comment about a local druggie who police were using as a confidential informant. He didn't use the man's name, but the whole thing came out of a story that received a lot of play (and interest) in my community. I elected to not run the comment (they can't post a comment without me approving it.)

The other instance came Wednesday morning, when a frequent poster who I know, alleged irregularities with the voting machines Tuesday night -- and it could be true based on a highly unexpected outcome on a bond issue. Still, I chose to call a friendly reporter and pass it on to him -- without telling him where I got it. Nor would I.

After reading your explanation, I probably wouldn't be reluctant to release the name --hell, he wrote it, posted it, and then offered (correct?) who he was with no inquiry from you. (Caution, though: an "email from his job" is NOT positive ID ... it could, in reality, be anyone.

Does your website software allow you to view comments before they are posted? I demanded it of mine.

[HushHush]

Just for the record . I don't seriously consider myself a "journalist" - my blog is/was more an outlet for my creativity. It just happened to become a place for viewers of this show to share gossip by default. An evolution I didn't see happening when I started writing.

Before this happened - anyone was allowed to post comments. It kept those 'shy' to release their details to a stranger to participate in the conversation. However - as of last night anyone who wants to comment must register as a user - and comments are moderated before posting. It's a pain because it stops the flow of conversation as I can't moderate this from work.

[ November 10, 2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: HushHush ]

[east coast producer]

Hush, here's the definition of a journalist and news per your state's statute. Sorry, you are not a journalist -- by law -- and you're not shielded by your state's statute. My opinion is to ask to be subpoenaed, then release it. You, as a blogger, have no shield.

Courtesy Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press. See YOUR state's shield law at http://www.rcfp.org/cgi-bin/privilege/contents.cgi?f=browse

(a) "Professional journalist" means a person regularly engaged in collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing news, for gain or livelihood, who obtained the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, a newspaper, news journal, news agency, press association, wire service, radio or television station, network, or news magazine. Book authors and others who are not professional journalists, as defined in this paragraph, are not included in the provisions of this section.

(b) "News" means information of public concern relating to local, statewide, national, or worldwide issues or events.

Your state DOES have a shield, and it's decent, but not as strong as the one I enjoy.

(2) PRIVILEGE.--A professional journalist has a qualified privilege not to be a witness concerning, and not to disclose the information, including the identity of any source, that the professional journalist has obtained while actively gathering news. This privilege applies only to information or eyewitness observations obtained within the normal scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recording of crimes. A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that:

(a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought;

(b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and

(c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.

How broad is the protection afforded under the reporter's privilege?

The reporter's privilege in [Hush's state] provides fairly broad protection to professional journalists wishing to avoid revealing their sources and information. Because the statute requires an evidentiary hearing at which the subpoenaing party must make a clear and specific showing that all three prongs of the test for overcoming the privilege are met, the journalist bears very little burden in establishing the entitlement to the privilege. So long as the journalist falls within the statutory definition of "professional journalist" contained in the statute and the information sought was obtained while actively gathering news, the privilege will attach, and the burden shifts to the party seeking disclosure to make the requisite showing.

Does the law provide an absolute privilege in particular instances, such as for confidential sources' identities, or is it always qualified?

The statutory privilege in [Hush's state] is qualified in all cases. The privilege is qualified because it applies only to "information or eyewitness observations obtained within the normal scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recordings of crimes." [Hush state]. Stat. § 90.5015(2) (2001). The Fifth District Court of Appeal of [Hush state] has held that the words "of crimes" in the statute modify "physical evidence," "eyewitness observations" and "visual or audio recordings." See News-Journal Corp. v. Carson, 741 So. 2d 572, 574 ([Hush] 5th DCA 1999). Thus, the privilege should be read not to apply to physical evidence of crimes, eyewitness observations of crimes, or visual or audio recordings of crimes. The privilege does apply to information concerning crimes, and such information is subject to the balancing test. See id. The privilege is further qualified by the three-part test that allows litigants to defeat the privilege in certain circumstances. See Part VI infra.

[ November 10, 2006, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: east coast of hell producer ]

[HushHush]

I like having my own State!

Oh well ... I never wanted to be a real journalist anyways :(

[HushHush]

Well .. just when I thought this had blown over ... guess what. I was contacted by an attorney today. They still don't know WHO I am ... but sent an e-mail via my blog. Asked me to call their office to talk about what was posted. I told them I'd rather not get involved ... was that the right thing to do?

[east coast producer]

I'd personally just ignore it until they subpeona the information. But that's just me. I'm not a lawyer. And I don't play one on tv. In fact, I'm not even on tv at all.

[Another side]

Originally posted by HushHush:
Well .. just when I thought this had blown over ... guess what. I was contacted by an attorney today. They still don't know WHO I am ... but sent an e-mail via my blog. Asked me to call their office to talk about what was posted. I told them I'd rather not get involved ... was that the right thing to do?I think it was the right response. I also think you should consult an attorney of your own.

[HushHush]

I'm not cutting into my own funds for this. I can't. Heck - I only make $9 an hour!

[Another side]

I understand ... there's not a lot of room for extras at $9 an hour.

But if that attorney really wants to find out who you are, I imagine a good 'pooter geek could find out for him in less than an hour.

My concern (for you) is that the other attorney will just go ahead and file a suit, and then you'll HAVE to hire a lawyer. Maybe a "consultation" with a local lawyer (you should be able to find an attorney in your area who offers free consultations) could set your mind at ease ... or at least tell you what to expect, in which case you can sort out your options before deciding how to proceed.

Of course, once they figure out you don't have a lot of money, the plaintiff's attorney might tell his client to look elsewhere for that elusive, big payoff.

[HushHush]

I guess if that happens - then I'll deal with it at that time. I've done nothing wrong ... I'm not at fault.

Thanks everyone for your input - it is appreciated. I'm just going to keep my mouth shut for now - and we'll see what happens.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by HushHush:
I guess if that happens - then I'll deal with it at that time. I've done nothing wrong ... I'm not at fault.You'd better hope a court sees it that way, if it comes to that.

[2:30]

Hush-

The way to handle it is to say that you will comply with a subpoena for the information. A number of posters have correctly identified the real question here - whether you promised confidentiality to the source in exchange for hte information.

Since you did not promise confidentiality to the source, you are breaking no ethical rules by complying with a subpoena.

[Bureau Chief]

Tell them that you want 50% of any financial award they get out of the original poster!

[HushHush]

Originally posted by Bureau Chief:
Tell them that you want 50% of any financial award they get out of the original poster!LOL! That's exactly what I'm thinking