Many journalists are convinced that it does.
The public's right to know, they argue, is so important that journalists and publishers should be exempt from requirements others face to produce evidence and to testify in court. If, for example, a newspaper publishes information that would prove your innocence in a criminal case, and the reporter who wrote the story promised the source of that information that he would not identify him, the reporter will very likely refuse to testify or provide information. But plainly it is not. Those rights to confidentiality grow out of the right to be secure against self-incrimination, and a belief that an individual ought to be able to seek competent professional advice without the risk that his advisor will use what the information reveals about him in a court of law. If a person cannot communicate openly with his attorney, he is effectively denied the right to defend himself.