Minnesota gubernatorial run, provided information during election time about a past shoplifting conviction and unlawful assembly charges of the Democratic challenger for Lieutenant Governor, Marlene Johnson, to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press in exchange for a promise that his identity as the source would not be published.

Over the reporters' objections, editors of both newspapers independently decided to publish his name as the information was obviously given to aid his party in the election. Cohen consequently lost his job at an advertising agency. He sued Cowles Media Company, who owned the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

In 1988, a jury of six found in Cohen's favor. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. The United States Supreme Court, while refusing to reinstate the damages, remanded the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which reinstated the jury's original verdict of $200,000.

The end result being Cowles Media Company was found liable based on a theory of promissory estoppel and had to pay Cohen $200,000 (not to mention attorney fees they incurred, which were likely very high).

In this case a conflict arose between the promise to keep an informant confidential and the decision to look more ethical and balanced in reporting when receiving information from a confidential informant that benefits him (his party) and hurts the opposing party in an election.

So, please discuss what you would do in a situation like this if you were the reporter/media company? Would you report the information or not? Would you want to credit your source since it obviously benefited him? Would you try to obtain another source? Would you look into the shoplifting in more detail before you report on it?