It's not about shielding the public from access to their sources. It's about shielding their sources from the public (or from any interest groups who might wish

It's not about shielding the public from access to their sources. It's about shielding their sources from the public (or from any interest groups who might wish to retaliate against the sources should they be named individuals). Traditionally speaking, confidential sources were most often people, and not always documents. Or they were people passing along documents. These people needed protection from those whose interests their leaks would disrupt. And thus, a strict code of confidentiality is often considered to be part of traditional journalistic ethics. I'm not saying this is always upheld, everywhere. I'm not saying certain unscrupulous publishers won't hide behind or twist this code to their personal benefit. But the code exists, at least ostensibly, for a good reason.