not the two reporters should be forced to reveal their sources. While many contend that confidential sources have been utilized by the press since the beginning of its existence, others believe that by not revealing their confidential sources, Fainaru-Wada and Williams are, in effect, obstructing justice and should be punished accordingly. Those who believe that confidential sources are necessary in reporting often point to the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post and their mysterious source, "Deep Throat," to whom they refer several times in their articles detailing the Watergate scandal. In an affidavit, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated that, "To jail a journalist because he protected his source is an assault not only on the press, but on Californians as well." Eve Burton, who has been the Hearst Corporation lawyer for the two reporters, said, "I think that they [Fainaru-Wada and Williams] have the constitutional right to protect their sources. I think law-enforcement's interest in determining who leaked the information to the press has to be balanced against the significant public-reporting that these guys did. Without the laws that have protected journalists for the past thirty years," she contended, "We wouldn't have had Watergate, we wouldn't have had BALCO, and we won't have the next government corruption case that comes along. That's the importance to the public in this. The reporters [must] be able to provide public information, and without the use of confidential sources -- carefully conceived, properly used -- we will not learn about important matters that involve our government." Lance Williams also expressed a similar concern, saying, "As far as the government coming after us, the world has changed since this story was published. In [the days of Woodward and Bernstein], the government was not going around the country subpoenaing reporters. This is a very new development. It's really an innovation of the current Attorney General, as far as I can tell. But the number of reporters subpoenaed in the past decade is not very great. And the number subpoenaed recently is a large proportion of the number subpoenaed in the past 20 to 25 years. We didn't know we were risking jail, we thought [the government] would try to find out the sources, but we really did not anticipate that it would get to this point. Because as a matter of practice, that wasn't what they were doing in those