From AP, July 19-25

Survey: No consensus among readers over protecting sources

Newspaper readers share no consensus over what reporters should do when forced to choose between jail time and revealing an anonymous source, according to an online Readers Speak survey sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors association.

Readers also had an equally mixed reaction to a federal protection for journalists in such a position.

A total of 25 news organizations helped gather 1,114 responses from 36 states and the District of Columbia. The results are not scientific. Readers were contacted because they had given their e-mail address to their local newspaper and comments were taken only online.

Court orders and legal appeals in the Valerie Plame leak investigation provided a pair of contrasting examples. Participating newspapers asked readers to describe their attitude toward protecting anonymous sources and to consider whether federal law ought to shield people who gather and report the news.

Among readers responding to the survey, part of the Reader Interactive initiative of the APME Credibility Roundtables Project, just over half said reporter Judith Miller of The New York Times did the right thing in choosing jail time over revealing her source for a story that was never published.

Nearly half also said Time Inc. responded appropriately in ultimately turning over Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper's notes. Cooper later testified about his contact with White House adviser Karl Rove after his lawyer secured a waiver of confidentiality.

Asked whether Congress should pass a law shielding reporters from being forced to testify in such cases, 44 percent said yes, 41 percent said no and 14 percent were undecided.