Blog

Times Union — Shielding sources

Times Union, Albany, N.Y.
Sept. 25, 2007

How did the American public learn about scandals like torture at Abu Ghraib, the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the use of steroids in major league baseball? It wasn't because officials in charge stepped fo

Times Union, Albany, N.Y.
Sept. 25, 2007

How did the American public learn about scandals like torture at Abu Ghraib, the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the use of steroids in major league baseball? It wasn't because officials in charge stepped forth with the facts. No, these scandals, and many others before them, came to light because of watchdog journalism that relied on confidential sources.

But those stories, and more, came at a price. The reporters who dug them out knew they risked prison if federal prosecutors sought to compel them to reveal the identity of their sources. That's because, unlike 49 states and the District of Columbia, where there are various shield laws to protect reporters, there is no such protection at the federal level.

This week, that could begin to change if the Senate Judiciary Committee passes the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. It warrants prompt passage.

Confidentiality is often the only tool journalists have to pry loose information and documents about abuses in government, business, professional sports and other areas of public interest. The reason sources want to remain anonymous is self-evident: They fear reprisal if they are publicly identified.

Regrettably, the lack of a federal shield law has led federal prosecutors assigned to investigating news reports to threaten reporters with jail if they refuse to disclose the identities of their sources. In recent years, more than 40 reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their sources in federal civil and criminal cases. The high numbers indicate that prosecutors are finding it easier to go after reporters than to build a strong case of their own against the accused.

Some opponents of a federal shield law contend that blanket protection would lead to abuses, such as disclosing trade secrets or personal medical information. But the experience at the state level shows those concerns to be baseless.

A larger concern, of course, is whether a shield law would give cover to criminals and terrorists. But the Schumer-Specter bill is no blanket. It allows prosecutors to compel reporters to identify their sources if there is a risk of criminal conduct or a threat to national security. That strikes the right balance between the government's ability to pursue wrongdoing, and the press's duty to expose it.

Archive

Contributors