Protecting sources in journalism has been used to uncover some of the most important stories in our country, including the Watergate Scandal, which led to former President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

President Donald Trump started Sept. 5 off like any other day, scatterbrained and recklessly tweeting about the “Failing New York Times.” Most recently, an anonymous article was published by The New York Times called “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.”

Without reporter’s privilege, problems like corruption in the government may go undetected and unchallenged. While no such federal protection exists for journalists in the United States, there is New York state-level protection under Shield laws. Still, journalists in the United States have been put in jail for multiple days for not revealing a source.

That is unacceptable in our world today. Without a guarantee of anonymity, people are deterred from coming forward and sharing information that can impact the community they live in.

Although sources should be willing to sign their names to their opinions, there are some cases where it is unsafe for them to come forward. In this case, the author may not have come to physical harm, but would probably have been fired for speaking out against Trump and may not have been able to make a living, causing harm to the author and their family.

If a newspaper makes the rare step to publish an anonymous source, that means the staff has already gone through the process and decided it was absolutely necessary for the source to remain anonymous.

The New York Times took a very important step by publishing the anonymous Op-Ed essay. It did so at the request of the author, whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. The New York Times took a huge risk by publishing the essay. News organizations around the world rarely publish something anonymous, due to the fact that their newspaper is on the line to receive a bad reputation if it is found to be false.

The few people at the newspaper who know the identity of the author made the careful decision to deliver an important perspective to the readers. Inside the well-constructed article, readers get a glimpse into what it is like working under Trump and his erratic behavior that is leading our great nation.

Of course, Trump called the author “gutless,” saying for national security purposes, the author should be turned over to the government. That is exactly why the author would not come forward and should not have to come forward. Trump later tweeted, “TREASON?”

It sounds like Azerbaijan, where someone can be given corrective labor for two years for speaking out about the leader. It sounds like Thailand, where people can be imprisoned anywhere from three to 15 years for speaking out about the leader. Other places, such as Poland, Turkey and the Netherlands, also give jail time. Iran gives a harsh penalty for those who insult leaders of the government by imprisonment or 74 lashes.

The author of the anonymous Op-Ed has done the country a great service by letting the world into a glimpse of the day-to-day happenings at the White House. While very little of it was surprising, it was important to be said.