Blog

Manhattan Mercury — Federal shield law worthwhile

The Manhattan (Kan.) Mercury
May 6, 2007

One needn't look much beyond the Watergate scandal or publication of the Pentagon Papers to realize that there are times confidential sources are invaluable to journalists and to the public.

Abuse, fraud and waste in both the pu

The Manhattan (Kan.) Mercury
May 6, 2007

One needn't look much beyond the Watergate scandal or publication of the Pentagon Papers to realize that there are times confidential sources are invaluable to journalists and to the public.

Abuse, fraud and waste in both the public and private sectors have been made public because journalists were able to protect the identities of individuals who otherwise would not speak up.

Unfortunately, prosecutors are increasingly demanding information reporters have acquired from confidential sources, and judges have increasingly threatened to send journalists to jail for keeping promises of confidentiality they've made to sources. Under President Bush, the Justice Department has issued 65 subpoenas to journalists, according to The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press.

The upshot is an erosion not just of reporters' freedom, but of the free flow of information central to our democracy.

That's why we support a bipartisan proposal introduced last week to enact a federal shield law that, with a few key exceptions, protects journalists from overzealous prosecutors and judges. The bill is the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. It would:

  • Provide journalists with a qualified privilege pertaining to sources and information. Journalists could still be compelled to provide information, but only if the need is demonstrated by a "preponderance of evidence."
  • Journalists could be forced to identify a source if the court rules it is necessary to prevent "imminent and actual harm to national security" or "imminent death or significant bodily harm." Similarly, journalists could be required to identify someone who has revealed information in violation of the law, such as trade secrets, health data or certain personal information about consumers.
  • Finally, the bill would define who the shield law would cover. It would apply to people "engaged in journalism," which is defined as "the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news and information for dissemination to the public." Bloggers, a comparative new phenomenon, are not explicitly covered, but presumably would be if they are "engaged in journalism."

As important as the shield law is, the last provision gives us pause. We're more than a little uncomfortable with the notion of journalists as a special class with legal protections not afforded to other citizens. Yes, journalists serve as the eyes and ears of the public, but we don't pretend to be special. Moreover, such a separation does not contribute to good journalism. The information journalists gather whether routine or investigative in nature is gathered to share with the public in order to help citizens make informed decisions.

It is that information information that people in power often don't want the public to know about that is of foremost importance. The shield law's larger purpose is to ensure the free flow of such information by protecting the journalists who report it and the anonymous sources who provide it.

Archive

Contributors