The reporter's job is not to provide justice.
I DO think that judges of a certain level, maybe State Supreme Court, should be able to order reporters to yield up their sources if the case demands it.
I mean, if the source is completely protected, that means the reporter can make the decision for US about what information to tell us and what not to tell us. Who was where, who saw what, and who should be punished for what they did. They then stop being reporters and start being judges and juries - protecting some and punishing others.
I wonder, how would you feel about reporter's privilege, if a reporter had interviewed several Jehovah's Witness pedophiles about how easy it is to prey upon Witness kids and how they get away with it. Would reporter's privilege be sacrosanct in that case? After all, the reporter could decide in his / her mind that pedophiles shouldn't even be punished and that protecting the source protects pedophile rights. As well as their ability to write another "scoop" about the lives of pedophiles, which these days might even win a Pulitzer, get a movie deal, or provide the next "civil rights" icon...
The first amendment has nothing to do with protecting criminals. Extreme case, but it could happen. I imagine NAMBLA hires reporters from time to time to write their case for them.
Reporter's privilege is like everything else, it's relative and conditional. It's a good principle, but sometimes the authorities need to be in possession of all the facts and be able to subpoena witnesses.