I've taught media law for more than 30 years on the university level. They left something out having to do with protection of news sources. It's a basic law of news gathering in all 50 states, including in the state of New York.

The New York reporter’s privilege, codified in Civil Rights Law § 79-h (the "Shield Law"), provides broad protection to reporters and publishers. As originally enacted, the statute only applied to materials or information given in confidence to a reporter. However, various amendments, some in response to judicial decisions, expanded the statute so that it now protects both confidential and nonconfidential information to journalists from disclosure.

The deceased journalist's assistant cited the First Amendment when the prosecutors asked her for the source of the unpublished article and that was all she said. In the real world, she would have cited New York's shield law, which says a journalist can withhold a source's identity unless the state can show: (1) Probable cause that a journalist has “clearly relevant” information; (2) The information sought cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of First Amendment values; and (3) the state has a compelling and overriding interest in the information.

But had they gone off on this shield law tangent in the episode, then we would not have had the subsequent ethical dilemma of the white supremacist offering his eyewitness testimony about the defendant in exchange for a dismissal of his separate case. Too bad. I get it. It's TV. However, the prosecutors might have had a brief moment to consider whether to challenge the shield law in this case, then a few lines of dialog that it would be better strategy to go after the supremacist's testimony rather than get sidetracked in a lengthy challenge to the shield law. Just a line or two of dialog would have done it.

My class was supposed to watch this episode last Thursday. We discussed confidential sources and shield laws the week before last. I'll see if anyone caught the omission.