Final answer:
The major sources for David Wedge's story about Judge Murphy were prosecutors in the district attorney's office who were involved in the case. Legal precedents such as Branzburg v. Hayes and New York Times v. Sullivan are important for understanding the complexities of protecting journalistic sources and the balance between press freedom and defamation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The major sources for David Wedge's story about Judge Murphy in the case of Murphy v. Boston Herald were prosecutors in the district attorney's office who were involved in the case.
When examining the role of sources in legal reporting and the potential biases they may introduce, it is important to consider prior legal precedents surrounding the freedom of press and protection of sources. Cases like Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) and New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) set standards for journalists in terms of compelled revealing of sources and the threshold for defamation, with the latter establishing the need for public figures to prove "malicious intent" or "reckless disregard" for the truth. This context highlights the critical balance between the right of the press to report and the right of individuals to be protected from unsubstantiated claims, a tension present in Wedge's situation.
Moreover, understanding the backgrounds of sources—whether they are friends, opponents, or otherwise vested in a story—is crucial for discerning potential biases. If the reporters' sources have personal vendettas or political motives, this could introduce bias by selection of sources, influencing individual reception and overall public opinion.