Austin American-Statesman — Congress must shield public’s right to know

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 07/31/2007 11:43:26
• In: Shield law editorials

Austin (Texas) American-Statesman
July 31, 2007

Congress has another opportunity this week to protect insiders who blow the whistle on government inefficiency and corruption and the journalists who report it.

Naturally, many people in government don't like the idea of protecting whistle-blowers, so the legislation being considered in the U.S. House and Senate faces an uphill course. A similar bill offering a qualified privilege for Texas journalists to protect the names of undisclosed sources fought its way through the Legislature last session only to be killed at the last minute by state Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball.

A federal law to protect the free flow of information could get a vote in the House Judiciary Committee as early as Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, the San Antonio Republican whose 21st District reaches into Austin, is the ranking GOP member on the committee. This is a bill Smith should support, though his office issued a statement that says nothing about his intentions.

Though opponents try to paint HR 2102, known as the Free Flow of Information Act, as a shield bill for journalists, the true beneficiary is the American people. When government corruption is exposed think of Watergate or the awful conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center the public benefits, not the journalists.

Of course, many in government don't like that exposure or a law that protects the identities of those who disclose wrongdoing. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department has weighed in against the act, and President Bush has expressed some concern about it.

But reporters and editors need a law that shields them from having to reveal their sources or face a jail term for refusing to do so. They and the country deserve protection from lazy prosecutors and litigators who know they can get information just by threatening a reporter with jail if he or she doesn't give up a source.

Journalists have spent time behind bars for refusing to reveal their sources. The New York Times' Judith Miller spent 85 days locked up for shielding her source in the CIA leak case. Miller did more time than will Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of four felonies in the case and sentenced to 30 months in prison. Libby's sentence was commuted by the president.

HR 2102, and its Senate version, S 1267, do not give journalists a blanket protection from ever having to tell who their unnamed sources were for an article. But it does stop prosecutors and civil attorneys from going to journalists first simply because that's the easiest route.

Both bills require that sources must be disclosed if it is necessary for national security purposes or to prevent bodily harm to someone. Those are situations reporters know they must live with. Also, under the bill, journalists and their publications still can face legal action for revealing trade secrets or protected personal or financial information.

The Free Flow of Information Act simply levels the playing field and provides journalists with some cover from prosecutors and lawyers on fishing expeditions. There would have to be a compelling reason to demand the name of a confidential source.

Many states offer similar protections to journalists, but there is a need for a law that will cover journalists and whistle-blowers in federal cases.

Congress should act forcefully to keep important information in the public eye, not have it remain hidden out of fear. People who reveal corruption or mismanagement could lose their jobs, their freedom, even their lives if they are exposed. This act will help get vital information to the public by protecting the source.