There isn't, and never was, any protection for journalists.
Journalists wanted to believe there was, and frequently acted as if there was, but there isn't. This is just affirming that well known law.
Now you might say it would be a good thing if such a law exists, and journalists certainly think so - and would have an easy time spreading their message. But as is no such law exists.
This depends on how you argue ... some lawyers think this is covered under the freedom of expression.
As far as I know there is also some international law covering the protection of sources. Yet, I'm not sure and have no clue about law :)
Those lawyers would be wrong. I can see how they would want that but there is no law to back it. Also, the US isn't governed by international law so they would not be bound by it unless there was a treaty and that treaty didn't contradict anything codified in our Constitution.
I wonder if there is a legal loophole wherein by becoming legal counsel for a source, you are no longer required to divulge anything they tell you due to attorney-client privilege. It would require the right to practice law, but it works on paper (obviously I am not a lawyer).
I don't see how this fits with leaked information. Are you supposed to tell a judge that it's privileged information, but you printed it in your newspaper?
Client-attorney privilege primarily protects the communication with the client, not the identity of the client - which is rather counter-productive for a journalist.
On the other hand, it could provide some degree of plausabile deniability, wouldn't it? "Sure, I talked to X several times. I also talked to Y, Z and <a gazillion of other people who look important, but aren't>. But I can't tell you about what -- you know, client-attorney...".
You guys are confusing federal and state laws. Many states have shield laws protecting journalists from being held in contempt (there are cases where this is voided, but that's not important). Anyways, while states might have this, this doesn't apply in federal court, as there is no federal law.
Those laws are also often qualified, so that the state can't use journalist sources as a first resort, but can fall back on them if other avenues of investigation are exhausted.
Have journalists even really believed there was? I am not a journalist, but know of the tradition of reporters protecting their sources. IIRC several have famously gone to jail for contempt of court rather than reveal a source. So I'd be surprised if any journalists thought there was a legal basis for refusing to disclose a source if ordered by a court to do so.
So, there is, but it's not a constitutional privilege, and not federal law.
About 40 states have what are called "shield laws", that give various forms of journalism protection.
The closest you get federally is Branzburg v. Hayes, where the reporter lost and was forced to testify. In it, the supreme court established a test for when you could force journalists to testify.
The DOJ also has self-imposed guidelines on journalist privilege that they try to follow.
People also think there is a doctor-patient privilege, but that doesn't exist federally either (yet exists in many states).
There is also no law that says the government can't seize phone records, email, etc. from 3rd party providers.
Let's face it ... any kind of laws like this are just delaying the inevitable, which is that organizations will keep any data they can, whether they are private companies like facebook, or governments.
So how about instead we push for greater transparency in everything? If journalists are required to reveal their sources, so should the NSA and CIA. Stop with the "national security" excuse to take away civil liberties. In this day and age, classified intelligence secrets may be more damaging than helpful, the same way that patents are more damaging than helpful in a fast-moving industry like software.
Journalists wanted to believe there was, and frequently acted as if there was, but there isn't. This is just affirming that well known law.
Now you might say it would be a good thing if such a law exists, and journalists certainly think so - and would have an easy time spreading their message. But as is no such law exists.