united-states contract-law liability new-jersey journalism
Is it ethical or legal for journalist to request info from school district staff against their own rules?
<p>This below screenshot is from the top of my <a href="https://citizensmedia.tv/2017/11/22/nugentletter/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">latest article</a>. There is a crisis at a New Jersey school and staff members have pictures that definitively prove wrongdoing. Many are afraid to come forward for fear of their job and retaliation. It is indeed <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/24237/does-this-district-bylaw-prohibit-staff-talking-with-the-press-about-the-school/24317#24317">against district rules to share pictures with the press</a>. That’s why two people, one a parent (not a district employee), another the president of the teacher union (an employee), have volunteered to accept this information.</p>

<p>I’m not “encouraging” anyone to break any rules. If they do give info, it wouldn’t be to the press (at least, it’s a distinct step removed). Also, since they will never tell me who they got the pictures from, I could never reveal my sources even if I wanted to.</p>

<p>As a journalist, is the below information an ethical or legal risk in any way? I’m not directly asking them to break the rules, but obviously it will ultimately be given to me for this upcoming article.</p>

<p>Given all this, Is this information safe to include? Can it be reworded or otherwise presented differently to better protect me?</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/JaHMc.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/JaHMc.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>In a legal sense, if you are posing as a journalist, you can ask anything of anyone, and it's up to them to answer your questions or provide you with photos or documents. If they provide you with photos or documents against the regulations of their employer (or state or federal law), that's their prerogative and their legal risk. They can be protected by whistle-blower laws, depending on jurisdictions, and/or their identities protected by the journalist, depending on jurisdictions, as well as Shield laws and the legitimacy of the journalist and publication.</p>

<p>But you can't <em>ethically</em> promise them to protect them as journalistic sources when it is questionable if you can be considered a legitimate journalist, and as a result, legally protect your sources through what is called <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/journalists/privilege" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reporters' privilege (Electronic Frontier Foundation)</a>.</p>

<p>Some bloggers can be considered journalists; that is something that a court often decides. New Jersey does have a <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/new-jersey-privilege-compendium/shield-law-statute" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shield law</a>.</p>

<p>And read <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/new-jersey-blogger-considered-journalist-under-state-shield-law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New Jersey blogger considered a journalist under state Shield Law | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a> and <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/nj_supreme_court_rules_blogger_1.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">N.J. Supreme Court says blogger not protected from revealing her sources | NJ.com</a>.</p>

<p>You ask if you can be protected and promise protection to your sources. Could you be considered a real, working journalist? Can you sincerely and legally protect your sources? Could you be a case that is tested in court? I'd ask a lawyer.</p>

<p>I'd consult a lawyer on that one.  There's a possibility it could be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tortious interference</a>, although I don't think it is.  The caselaw is going to vary somewhat by state, although there may be First Amendment issues that apply throughout the US.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fclj.org/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/chasteen.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This paper</a> is interesting.  The introduction states that CBS once declined to broadcast an interview with a former VP of a tobacco company, on advice of their lawyers, because he would have breached a confidentiality agreement and they were not sure whether they would be liable for tortious interference.  However, it also says "the timidity shown by CBS seems misplaced" and in a footnote speaks of speculation that they were being overly cautious due to buyout talks (a big lawsuit could make the company less attractive, even if they eventually win.)</p>

<p>The employees, of course, would be liable if they breached their contract, even if you aren't.</p>
