Star-Gazette — Added protection for reporters

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/01/2007 15:52:20
• In: Shield law editorials

Federal shield law ensures sources cooperate, but doesn't provide absolute confidentiality.

Star-Gazette, Elmira, N.Y.
Oct. 1, 2007

New York and Pennsylvania journalists are already protected by so-called shield laws that prevent the government from making them reveal confidential sources they have used to research stories. Although anonymous or off-the-record sources are rare at most media outlets, there are occasions when the only way reporters can get the truth out to the public is by protecting sources.

The Star-Gazette, for instance, discourages anonymous sources and generally would not find itself in need of the state shield laws to do its job. But larger media outlets tackling stories with national or international implications often play by different rules because the stakes are so high.

That's why a federal shield law is needed. It would complement what 33 states, such as New York and Pennsylvania, already have in place to ensure that reporters have protection and that sources who fear for their jobs or even their lives know that they will be protected, too.

A bill currently in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee should be approved to protect journalists in those infrequent situations when they need to promise their sources confidentiality in order to expose wrongdoing that otherwise would go unchecked.

The proposal is backed by more than 50 media organizations and companies and with recent revisions would include language that would not impede officials from pursuing information involving sensitive national security or law enforcement matters.

The Newspaper Association of America points out in its summary of the proposal that without protection of a shield law that covers all states reporters might shy from covering key issues that require confidentiality. The NAA points to stories as the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center, the Enron scandal, the inner workings at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the steroid abuse scandal in Major League Baseball as examples of issues that never would have been raised and addressed without confidential sources.

The national newspaper organization also notes that in recent years more than 40 reporters and media organizations have been subpoenaed or asked in federal court about their confidential sources, notes and work. Last month, a federal judge ordered five reporters to reveal their sources in a suit filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against the federal government. Hatfill had been identified by federal officials as a so-called person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

A judge in most states would not be able to order such compliance, but by going through the federal court system, cagey lawyers or federal officials could try to force that information out of reporters. That's why New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail defying a contempt order until her source, the now infamous I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, gave her permission to name him as her contact for information she received, but never published, about former CIA covert agent Valerie Plame.

A federal shield law would have protected her from that unnecessary jailing and kept her from being coerced by authorities who usually have other avenues to take for the information.

Perhaps most important is that the proposed shield law is not absolute. Reporters would be required to identify sources if disclosure would prevent a specific terrorist act against the United States or harm to national security. It also would not allow reporters who were eyewitnesses to a crime to withhold information, nor could they refuse to cooperate if a person's life was in danger.

With such built-in protections for the public, the proposed federal shield law in Washington really benefits both journalist and the people they serve -- the public. It should be approved.