The first test - the test of the circumstances of the case: This test must examine, among other things, the circumstances of providing the information to the journalist, the timing of the information, the manner in which the source was exposed to the information he provided, the degree of risk involved in revealing the name of the source, and his expectation that it would not be disclosed.
The second test - the quality of the information: within the framework of this test, the type of information provided, its importance, and the degree of public interest inherent in its disclosure to the general public must be examined." (Judge Sagi's decision in an appeal against the Israeli News Company).
According to this approach as well, journalistic privilege should not be applied to street interviews, as in the example presented above, since interviewees should not be recognized as "sources". In this regard, I have seen to emphasize that the mere choice of a source to be interviewed openly is not sufficient to make him an "interviewee" in the sense that the privilege does not automatically apply to him. I will reiterate that it is not only confidentiality that underlies the privilege, but also the relationship of trust that the confidentiality seeks to maintain. These words are also consistent with the considerations that must be taken into account in the framework of the test of the circumstances of the case, as quoted above].
- The conclusion of this section is that the time has come to recognize journalistic privilege in relation toRaw Material Journalist - whether in relation to material that has been defined as "not to be quoted", or in relation to material that originates from a relationship of trust that justifies protection. We reiterate that expanding the scope of the privilege does not in itself make it absolute. Journalistic privilege is, as stated, confidentiality Relative, which the court can remove in appropriate cases in accordance with the tests set out in the Citrine.
- We have come a long way so far, but we must bear in mind that confidentiality is one form of expression in which protected values can be protected in our legal system - but not the only one. The distinction between the various legal means that serve to protect those protected interests and values is sharpened in circumstances that meet the "boundaries" of these means and the limitations they entail.
As I discussed in the matter מקור ראשון, at the basis of the institution of confidentiality are a number of rules that limit the protection it provides: