What we learned from the Jordan and Summers affairs recently is that "off the record" isn't. What we have learned from the various payola scandals is that failure to disclose payments leads to trouble. Now the US courts are telling journalists that they cannot protect their sources (excellent legal analysis a Beldarblog).
On the whole I say - good. I understand the arguments about how whistleblowers need to be protected etc. etc. but I think that in these days of internet anonymity if a whistleblower can't get the info out to an interested hack without being caught then he's incompetant. As far as I'm concerned the number of places where information should be confidential and protected is small (national security, personal information and consultation with experts i.e. lawyer/client, doctor/patient would about cover it). In general I think that information - particularly with respects to the news - should not be protected by default with secrecy only imposed on an as needed bassis. This is the same argument between the English common law tradition and the Napoleonic one - one says everything not forbidden is permitted, the other says everything not permitted is forbidden.
I do not believe that investigative journalism will die if journalists are treated the same as the rest of us. I do sort of wonder whether the current "investigative journalists" will survive without their privileges. I also wonder whether anyone will miss them. The Beldar analysis above has a key section here on the way some members of the media seem to think journalistic privilege should work - and why their ideal of being treated differently to regular citizens is wrong:
I also question Mr. Abrams' judgment in seriously arguing for an absolute common-law privilege — one that would protect journalists from disclosing confidential sources no matter what the facts might be in any individual case. Floyd, baby, tuck that away in a footnote to preserve the argument for the Supremes if you think you can make it fly there. But giving journalists an absolute privilege is never going to fly — it would be like giving them a license to embed with al Qaeda and drive the suitcase nuke into Manhattan in a NYT press van.
The fact that bloggers are sorta semi-journalists means that the mooted privilege rule is practically what an economist would call a non-tariff barrier - that is to say a way for the mainstream media to get an inside edge over their pyjama wearing competitors and that is bad for even more reasons.