The NYT has weighed in on the recent court judgments jailing U.S. reporters for failing to identify to the courts sources to whom they had promised confidentiality.

An excerpt:

The appellate panel (note: In the cases of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine) expressed palpable hostility to the notion that the First Amendment provides any protection for journalists subpoenaed to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury. We hope that this is a case where the tenor of an oral argument does not foretell the content of a court's ruling. That same appellate hearing also explored another legal avenue the court could take to stop the two journalists from becoming the only people punished for the Bush administration's abuse of power in leaking the name of a covert C.I.A. operative.

In a series of questions, one of the three judges, David Tatel, sketched a promising alternative that would accord some legal protection in the grand jury setting, on grounds other than the First Amendment, involving a broad balancing of the equities. Ample basis for such a resolution can be found in a 1996 Supreme Court case that recognized legal protection of patients' statements to their psychotherapists. It can also be found in the reality that 49 states and the District of Columbia now offer journalists some degree of protection - a near consensus that easily supports at least a qualified common law privilege protecting a reporter's vital work.

Even without what we continue to believe are strong First Amendment claims, it would take no great legal stretch for Judge Tatel and his colleagues to overturn the lower court ruling regarding Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper. All it would require is a healthy regard for robust journalism, government accountability and an informed citizenry.