I'm far from current on the latest precedents, but if I was counsel for a source whose identity was leaked, I would argue that a reporter working for a media outlet often (not always) has to get higher-up OK with withholding the identity of a source (couldn't tell you if this is a general practice or if it varied from outlet to outlet - I
suspect any outlet big enough to have a legal department would lean this way). If that's the case, the protection comes not from the journalist but from the entity 1) employing the journalist, and 2) taking the final risk publishing information based on sources they won't name. That could make the outlet liable. Again, I'm no legal beagle, so I also stand to be corrected.
Another fine point is how some outlets say she was "fired" and others say she was "laid off" with others being out processed. For-cause processes
may lead to different file handling practices than just being cut like one of the herd being culled because not enough money is being made.
Still,
not a good look for the network some still remember this guy gracing ....
View attachment 83376
Yup - but also remember, like private media companies here, CBS's main deliverable is entertainment/"eyes on" and its job is to make money, so I gotta wonder how that was juggled with the different concepts of "protecting sources" in this case.