But what about the Pentagon Papers, you ask? A damn good question. It exposed a massive conspiracy underlying the Vietnam War, one that the public needed to know. And wasn’t “Deep Throat” a hero, telling Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money”?

But that was a long time ago, when the whistle-blower was the oddity, and what the whiteblower revealed was big. Huge. Compelling journalists to reveal their sources could have significantly changed the course of history back then. Is it still true today?

Exposing such things depends, of course, not just on journalists but also on brave officials willing to sound the alarm about government misconduct. Even when their disclosures are clearly in the public interest, these whistle-blowers — or sources, in the journalistic parlance — often hide their identities to avoid punishment or retaliation. In this way, bringing essential information to the public often depends on protecting the identity of the person sharing it.

That the New York Times has come out in an editorial in support of the “Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Act,” or the PRESS Act as it’s acronymically known, which it concedes is a matter of self-interest, is hardly a surprise. Indeed, without sources, how would reporters know what to report inside government? And if reporters didn’t report it, the public might never know it.

Safeguarding the anonymity of reporters’ sources is essential in the exercise of this critical role, a need that several federal courts have found is implicit in the First Amendment. It has been recognized by governments or courts in 49 states and the District of Columbia as a form of protection for journalists and news outlets against unfair or overbearing efforts by government to ferret out their sources, punish whistle-blowers and scare off others who might consider speaking up about wrongdoing.

Over the past eight years, however, the nature of whistle-blowing has changed somewhat. Damning story after story was published based on “unnamed sources,” often low-level disaffected staffers who either disagreed with a policy by those they were putatively serving or wanted to make themselves special and important by revealing things they were sworn to hold in confidence.

And it wasn’t just White House sources. Consider the release of the draft of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs opinion. The Court’s investigation went nowhere, and while there’s vast speculation about who did it and why, we still have no clue about what really happened. But internal disclosures from the Supreme Court were unheard of. Until a decision was released, it was a secret as changes could be made, votes changed, discussion possible and, most importantly, it was not the place of the bottom of the Court’s pecking order, law clerks, to screw their patrons, justices.

But this is not purely a matter of press versus government. This law would effectively protect those who serve the public interest by blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing. And it would help protect all Americans, who deserve nothing less than the full truth about the officials they elect and the government they fund.

Indeed, it would protect those who reveal what the government would conceal by preventing courts from ordering journalists to reveal their sources. “except in the rare cases in which disclosure is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or imminent violence.” Then again, the exception for an act of terrorism may already be archaic given that terrorism is being redefined as freedom fighting for the oppressed.

We’ve also come to fetishize “transparency,” as reflected in the NYT editorial, by simplistically claiming Americans “deserve nothing less than the full truth.” Most of the time, sure. But what about troop movements in advance? Means and methods of espionage? What about full and open discussion of policy to test whether it will play out as intended at its logical extremes without fear that some snot-nosed kid will “reveal” that a government official wanted to commit some heinous act that was never the intention?

Is it wrong of government to take issue with a constant stream of leakers? There are very serious, very important whistles to be blown, but there are petty, even false, blows as well that neither inform nor enlighten. There are reporters who delight in the disaffected staffer of a politician they despise and will get a front page headline out of an “unnamed source’s” dubious claim. Is it worth it to get the Pentagon Papers? Is there any middle ground to protect serious revelations from narcissistic kids who want to be social media heroes? How can we protect the important without enabling so many leaks that the ship of state sinks?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.