People considered terrorists by the government will not contact or speak with journalists if they can't trust that their conversations with the journalist will not be seen by the government. It's not a matter of "just don't go on the record." The source presumably has built up trust in the journalist and trusts their judgement to not compromise the source. An example that comes to mind is Robert Fisk interviewing Osama Bin Laden in 1993. The interview was on the record. He was even at the time a major world figure. People wanted to know what he had to say. He would presumably been unwilling to do the interview if he thought that the CIA would seize Frisk's notes determine his location and assassinate him.

> People wanted to know what he had to say

Sure. Also applies to modern sources of controversy and "view count": flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, populist demagogues and other controversy generators.

I'm skeptical. How much of it is journalistic interest, how much is "wanting page views?"

What difference does it make?

What does it mean to be a non confidential source? Did the journalist explicitly say it was not confidential, or did they just not swear it was confidential?

My understanding is that there is a protocol that sources and journalists follow concerning “on the record, “off the record,” or somewhere in between that is negotiated before the interview begins. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/reader-center/off-the-rec...)

Doesn't seem reasonable to me. At the stake is not just press freedom, but its integrity.

Canada is also a signatory on UDHR, they can't violate terrorist's fundamental right to privacy.