DO journalists have to reveal soures, and why?
969252
Journalists can be ordered by a judge to reveal their sources and jailed if they refuse, but they do not have to reveal their sources without a court order.\n\nNude dancing is not protected by the first amendment, which is why cities can ban nude bars and they tend to be in unincorporated areas. "Obscene" material has no first amendment protection.\n\nBible study can be conducted in public schools if and only if it is conducted as part of a literature course and it is only discussed in so far as it is literature. Otherwise, religious events can be held on school grounds outside of school times as long as the grounds are available for any religious meeting that may want to use them.
984584
Very little these days.  The press needs to be free to keep the society honest and well informed about what is really going on.  It used to work pretty well, but today, all major news sources are owned by  international conglomerates of business interests.  These interests do not wish to have anything reported that makes them look bad, so if you want to know about the exploitation of the poor, environmental violations by business or governments they support, what is really happening in war, who supports and directs politicians, are elections rigged, or any number of other important issues relevant to your life and your future, you can no longer rely on the press to be independent and give you that information.  Press, TV news etc., have all been bought up by those you would hope the press would tell about.  No more.  Not here.  Go to Al Jazeera and you will get better news that we do in our "free country."
354961
Regardless of your politics people, the answer is YES.  The media needs stories to fill 24 hours worth of 'news.' The media frequently "reports" what the governments reports, says, and spins.  People at all levels of government (federal, state, local, school) spend time every day trying to spin a media message in a particular way, in the same way that PR companies and corporate companies cast their messages.  How, when, what, and why a story is reported is generally structured by others in government (and business) with the public blissfully unaware.  Fox simply characterizes with a conservative bent.
854664
Structured Interviews, as you would've already laid the skeleton for your thoughts and views, you will not hear (or ignore) some information, which could be useful or be the key. However, i guess this wil depend on personal experience and habits.
1098485
EXACTLY!!!\n\nThere is a story circulating right now about the Bush administration, ONCE AGAIN, violating privacy laws by getting access to all banking/financial transactions; although, they claim to have only looked at international transactions. They have the authority to do this BUT not until they go before a judge and get approval. Of course with Bush not believing in the consitution, he did not do that = broke the law AGAIN!!\n\nNow, to counter this Bush has been bombarding talk radio and Fox News (even saw an upset guy on pbs The Newshour yesterday about it) with propaganda that does not explain the entire story as I did in the first paragraph. \n\nTheir defense is we are in a 'war on terror'. So, basically because we are in a war on terror, they believe they can ignore all the laws and ppl's right to privacy, etc...\n\nSo, as you stated... with them attacking the press for reporting this story.. there goes freedom of speech and the press.\n\nBtw, the laws about a reporter revealing his/her source are very vague. A reporter does have the right to tell his/her source but most don't because that hinders ppl from wanting to tell them things later. I personally think that if someone tells a reporter something and the act of telling is in itself breaking the law then the reporter SHOULD be required to tell his/her source. IE, this Carl Rove thing about the CIA agent leak. We all know he was behind that but the reporter won't tell.
994165
Does it have to be the truth?
908855
they do, don't be fooled, it exsists but the gov't prolly doesnt want to release information unless there is a threat to the general populace if they don't like people wonder about someone famous and if they are going to jail or not. and if they don't there will be a riot
125159
it cant be said with the information provided
696474
Not my career. But it can affect others, if they are not documented.\n\ncc
570410
Sometimes when famous people write their memoirs, they have to leave names out for legal reasons. I'm sure if this is the case that all parties involved are sworn to secrecy, so it may never be known.
1165309
If they don't want it published, then the government should keep it quiet.
332537
In America, no.  That would put them afoul of the 1st Amendment.  And while the 1st Amendment is slowly but surely being whittled away, we're still not yet at the point where the press has to submit stories for goverment approval before publication.
571256
The goverment has concealed things from the public since it's formation. Cover stories and diversion stories are created daily. With today's instant communications technology, it's not as easy. And it's not always with evil intent. For example, when the 911 incident occurred, the idea was that the least truthful information released to the public the better, so as not to create panic over possible future or more attacks that law enforcement had no advance knowledge of where it would occur, even though they told us it highly probable it would. The theory is tell the public the least information possible with plausible deniability. If that isn't possible, and real information for the safety of the public is available, release it according to its weight against negative panic and fear that it may cause. The least the better is rule of thumb in goverment.
1012204
I hope this is an opinion piece.\n\nRewording:\nAlthough it is ethically right for journalist to write only the truth in journalism, in reality this seldom.
225224
While the FCC requires radio and TV stations to follow particular practices in accepting advertising for political candidates, I don't believe they are required to disclose the amounts they receive.\n\nHowever, campaign finance disclosure laws require candidates to detail their expenses, including advertising.  I don't know if gets broken down into which media is used and how much is spent per outlet, but some basic deduction skills could get you in the ballpark.
839545
You'll have to provide more info.......??????????????????
169555
Am employer can ASK what he or she wants to.\n\nHowever, what you are LEGALLY required to reveal is a different matter.\n\nConsult a lawyer in your state or country for specific details.