The right of journalists to withhold the identity of their sources has always been a vast source of controversy in the United States, with reporters from several of the country's most prestigious news organizations now under threat of jail and punitive fines from judges and the justice department.
             In most cases withholding your sources from the public is good because not only will it get you the interview itself but it also helps you develop a rapport with people you might encounter for an interview later on. On the other hand, withholding information from the authorities can be a tricky thing to do. It is up to you, the reporter, to determine whether it is worth giving up your source, or in some cases, being sent to jail.
             In some instances, such as that of the case in El Paso, Texas, it is essential for the press to withhold information from the public for some period of time. In this particular case, the media withheld a story of the kidnaping of two boys for two days because of threats, relayed by the F.B.I., that the kidnappers would kill the boys, if the kidnaping were publicized.
             Withholding information is triggering investigations and civil lawsuits, and spreading alarm through the journalism profession. Right now, the ability of reporters in this country to protect their sources is based on a somewhat vague interpretation of the U.S. constitution. Nathan Siegel, a lawyer with the Associated press news agency, said, "There seems to be more willingness on the part of the judiciary to limit press freedom." Numerous press freedom organizations are urging the Supreme Court and Congress to help clarify the laws regarding the press.
             ...