New York Times — The Public’s Right to Know

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/09/2007 14:40:58
• In: Shield law editorials

The New York Times
Oct. 9, 2007

Efforts to enact a federal shield law for journalists have passed a critical milestone in the Senate. By a 15-to-2 vote, the Judiciary Committee approved legislation sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, to grant reporters limited protection against being forced to reveal confidential sources in federal court.

The measure, the Free Flow of Information Act, offers reporters and their confidential sources weaker protection in the broad realm of national security than a bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee in August weaker than we would have liked.

But some compromise was necessary to reassure wavering senators that a journalist’s pledge of confidentiality would not be allowed to trump public safety and to give the measure a realistic chance of passage.

Senator Schumer deserves particular credit for his advocacy on behalf of the bill during the committee’s deliberations. Thanks largely to his efforts, the measure emerged from the committee without further watering down its principled protection of robust reporting and Americans’ right to know about the doings of their government. His continued leadership will be essential as the measure moves to being considered by the full Senate and House.

The next showdown could come soon. Buoyed by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says she aims to have the House take up the shield bill by the end of the year.

Supported by dozens of news organizations, including The New York Times Company, this measure is no threat to national security or law enforcement. It is an antidote to undue government secrecy and misplaced prosecutorial zeal in targeting reporters. The fact is that whistle-blowers and other insiders with valuable information to impart tend to clam up when faced with the spectacle of reporters getting subpoenaed by the government or even jailed in legal battles over demands to disclose their sources.

What the press is seeking, and what the Senate Judiciary Committee has now endorsed in compromised form, is not a blank check or an absolute protection against ever revealing a source. It is a balancing of interests that seeks to avoid harm to news gathering but allows disclosure of sources when found to be truly necessary to protect the country.