So, are notebooks vital for journalists, or vital for everyone? Does Jason, as a member of the mainstream media, deserve more protections than the average citizen?

If an average citizen can be compelled to testify in a court and have personal effects seized and searched to assist in an investigation, I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to journalists. They have long fought for immunity from revealing sources (something that would quickly get me slapped with a perjury or contempt of court charge), to the detriment of criminal investigations everywhere.

Now the argument is that journalists can get better information if their sources know they will stay anonymous. They argue that society is better-off and better-informed if they are the gatekeepers to information, not law enforcement and political officials. If you want to see how this is complete and utter bullshit, look at Watergate. Without Deep Throat, there was no story. There was no way these intrepid reporters would have found things out on their own. But when they discovered a web of lies and intrigue that went much deeper than the original story, did they take that information to the proper authorities?

Of course not! They wanted to sell newspapers! People wanted scandal, and if they used the same impeccable set of journalistic ethics that would prevent them from writing a front page article with inch-high title font on Uncle Vinny's (identify changed to protect the innocent) NFL playoff picks, they'd quickly realize that nobody wanted to be quoted on the record, and the story gets buried. Then-deputy of the FBI, Mark Felt Sr. (later revealed to be Deep Throat) was half a hero. He knew something was wrong and wanted to fix it, but he was too much of a pussy to speak up for himself, so he blew the whistle and slunk off into the night.

So back to Mr. Warick. In his reporting, he came across information (from informants that preferred to remain anonymous) that was interesting enough to sell a whole pile of newspapers, but also interfered with the Hana murder trial / Forsetti investigations. He had to choose between his career (let's face it, a journalist with a reputation for giving up sources is about as useful to a news organization as a no-armed underarm deodorant tester) and justice (ensuring all available information is available to both the prosecution and the defence, to produce a fair verdict).

Here's my opinion: Nobody should be compelled to testify against or for anything anywhere. Instead of elevating journalists to a level above the hoi polloi, why not give everyone the same protection? There are twitterers and facebookers with a bigger audience than some mainstream news outlets, let's let everyone sling dirt and rake muck with immunity. Give the CBC and the Star Phoenix all the respect due to the gossip rags they have devolved into, and pay more attention to what gets buried on page A9 on the Friday before a long weekend than to the front page story on Saturday's paper.