This story interests me. Where do news outlets rights end and where do reporter rights start when it comes to confidential sources.

This story has a lot of ancillary intrigue because of judge finding her in contempt and many people believing the government applied pressure on CBS.

Republicans in Congress are pushing the narrative that she is being persecuted because her reporting on Hunter Biden. Democrats are saying this is another conspiracy theory and that it is just a dispute between her and CBS.

Herridge did spend a lot of her career at Fox News so I’m sure some on here will dismiss her out of hand, even though she is well respected and has won journalism awards.

I bet I can name the ones that will do exactly that.

While I'm certainly in support of reporters being able to keep their sources private, CBS did not order her to turn over those records. A judge did. Shouldn't people be more concerned about the court ruling?

I mean "many people believing" seems to be a common theme these days. But believing it was CBS who is at fault here when in fact it was a court who ordered she turn over those records seems like a rather weak foundation to place your beliefs in.

Who says people aren't concerned about the court ruling?

Feels like you are kind of missing the point. The "news organization" she worked for should be just as adamant about journalistic integrity as she is. Her "employer" should be supporting her first amendment rights instead of rolling over for an overzealous government that is disregarding the Constitution.

At least that's the argument.

It's much harder to sue the system. Judges don't often make rulings that would effectively lessen their own authority. The system is rather incestuous that way.

Now if this case finds her rights we're violated by CBS, the ruling could be used as evidence in going after the "government"/court.

Sadly, the court seems aware of that logical conclusion and is misusing its power to avoid that outcome as seems a more and more regular occurrence.

Again, I'm not positive on the specifics, but that seems to be the broad strokes of the situation from her perspective.

I would think you should have a hard time reaching your conclusions based on the fact you admit you're "not positive on the specifics".

Much like yourself I don't have the details either. So I'm basing my opinion on what I do know.

As much as I hate to say this I believe that the business has the right to everything contained within their building that pertains to their business. Therefore a news agency has the right to everything that pertains to news and its reporting which is on their property. I don't have to like it but I do believe that's what it boils down to. They are paying reporters to work there and as such I think they have the right and control of everything that pertains to that which they in fact have paid someone to do.

As more details unfold I may change my opinion on that. But as of now I have little to go on otherwise.