新聞工作者因為採訪新聞所取得的資訊。在特定的刑事案件當中，如果也可能被用來認定事實或者掌握被告下落，國家刑事訴追機關對此會有非常大的興趣，且希望新聞工作者能夠將取得的資訊透露。透過把新聞工作者列為證人的方式，在我國，按照刑事訴訟法第176條之1，他不得對此加以拒絕，並且，在面對國家刑事訴追機關對此的訊問，從刑事訴訟法第193條第1項也推得，新聞工作者負有陳述的義務。新聞工作者實行這樣的陳述義務時，受憲法所保障的新聞自由，會和國家的刑事訴追利益產生衝突。在我國，新聞工作者可以擔任證人並且一律必須實行陳述的義務，這個衝突的平衡點在哪並不明確。無獨有偶的，歐陸法系的老大哥，德國，基本法明文保障新聞自由，在刑事訴訟法的位階，作為證人的新聞工作者，一旦符合條件，依法得主張且免除其陳述的義務。本文想觀察德國相關立法、司法與學理上面的討論，找出新聞工作者免除陳述義務的理論基礎，像是，免除陳述義務的新聞工作者的範圍、拒絕陳述的標的以及形成其前提的原則...等等，還有，在絕對保護的要求底下，防止扭曲的機制應該要如何設計。藉此提供討論新聞工作者免除陳述義務時應有的取向。

A Journalist gets the information from investigation. In some cases, this information may also be used for fact-finding and Festivals position of the accused. The state has the great interest to know it. A prosecutorial organ may require the press to be a witness and provide the relevant information with a court prosecutor. He shall not refuse to charge for questioning as a witness （§§ 176-1, 193-1 The Code of Criminal Procedure ROC）. As a witness, the journalist has the Duty to give his statement, if the judge or prosecutor want to hear. Here there may be a Conflict between the freedom of the press and the efficient prosecution. Both interests are recognized in Taiwanese literature and also protected by the constitutional law ROC. The press has no right to refuse the duty of being a witness and is obligated to make a statement according to Taiwan Criminal Proceedings. In Germany, freedom of the press is in Grundgesetz guaranteed. According to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, the journalist can be exempt from being a criminal witness when some requirements are met on certain criminal proceedings. This paper explores the debates over the exemption of being a witness in a criminal case from legal and judicial development in German. In addition, the Institute for absolute protection is not forgotten. Finally, further law reforms can be suggested from the findings.