Much discussion within media ethics has focused on the acceptability of surreptitious tape recording of news sources by media professionals. The most common legal and social arguments supporting secret taping assert that recorders "hear" and "remember" better, are expedient and practical, protect against libel suits, provide historical documentation, and are legal in 78% of the United States. In "Nieman Reports," a prime example of the justificatory rhetoric emerging in the media professionals' journals, Theodore L. Glasser argues that secret taping does not invade privacy, is not necessarily antidemocratic or dangerous, and is different from wire-tapping and entrapment. However, deeper questions about interviewing are raised by the negative arguments, which claim that secret taping: (1) preserves greater intimacy between source and reporters than is assumed by the source; (2) forfeits a source's confidentiality and right to speak "off the record"; (3) decreases trust; (4) is, or should be, illegal; (5) increases eavesdropping potential and source identification; (6) might change the source's behavior; (7) precludes the source's chance for retraction or denial; (8) violates beliefs of certain cultures; (9) exposes vulnerabilities; (10) is associated with wrongful conduct; (11) alters power relations; and (12) implies that ends justify means. Comparative analysis shows that, while surreptitious taping can be justified in both practical and moral terms, dangerous and subtle problems with this practice surface when issues of human dignity, truth, and freedom are considered. Notes are appended. (JD)