Privacy/Political Power Blog

In 1990, Brian Karem, a television broadcast reporter joined the ranks of journalism martyrs.

Working for San Antonio’s KMOL-TV, Karem defiantly ignored a series of three court orders to turn over notes from a phone interview. This interview was with a murder suspect. Both prosecution and defense attorneys demanded the notes on the pretense that it would be beneficial in the court case.

According to the Spokane Chronicle, Karem refused the court order because he had promised the three individual sources not to divulge their names. The sources felt that being publicly named would be life threatening.

The New York Times reported that when subpoenas were initially issued, Karem handed over the majority of his paperwork, including the taped interview, along with notes. The one thing Karem did not hand over, was a piece of paper that listed the names of the three individuals who helped arrange the interviews with the suspect.

Karem was then sentenced six months in prison for contempt of court. The New York Times followed up with a story after Karem had served two weeks of this sentence. One of the individuals agreed to be named, and Karem was freed. The First Amendment Center records that eventually the remaining sources also came forward.

I originally have always believed that every journalist should be willing to go to the grave (or prison) for their integrity. If I was in Karem’s situation, I would most certainly hope that I would demonstrate the same courageousness.

However, perhaps I say this only because Karem only served a short part of his sentence, and in the end, all was well. The Cohen text suggests that I not be so bold in my silence. Cohen urges a balance between the “freedom to speak to the freedom to discover the truth.”

Cohen goes on to expand on the First Amendment –it is not meant to punish the truth, but it also should not prevent any steps towards the uncovering of said truth.

This idea can be applied to Karem’s case. He was not to be punished for pursuing the truth, but he was punished for preventing the whole truth to be disclosed.

Whole truth is where journalistic integrity is challenged at its peak. A journalist should be willing to publish the truth, even if it was not the original intent of the article.

Other reasons that Cohen would argue that Karem was in the wrong, include very practical rationale. Among these include the inconvenience of fighting against the subpoenas as a journalist, and also the emotional issues that derive from such a harrowing time.

We are urged in our journalism classes to create the sense of trust with a source. It would go against all journalistic integrity, personal principle and Christian morals to violate this trust.
However, we are also instructed to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matt 22:21) Should the government request information, it would be in the best interest to give it to them.