St. Petersburg Times — Protecting journalists protects public interest

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/10/2007 15:53:43
• In: Shield law editorials

St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times
Oct. 9, 2007

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week voted overwhelmingly for a measure that would grant journalists legal protections from being forced to disclose their sources. The bipartisan nature of the 15-to-4 vote for the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035, was encouraging, but its passage is far from sure in the Senate, where the proposal faces opposition from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Most people would probably presume the Constitution's grant of press freedom also carries an inherent right of reporters to protect the confidentiality of their sources. But the federal courts have not been friendly to the notion of reporters' privilege. The rulings have left journalists at the mercy of prosecutors, civil litigators and federal judges, some of whom have threatened press members with jail time if they refuse to cooperate. And, of course, some reporters have landed in jail.

There are solid public policy reasons for giving journalists the ability to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Insiders with blockbuster information on government and corporate wrongdoing often won't come forward unless their identity is protected. They know that if named, they could face dismissal and other reprisals.

Without question, a higher societal value is served by encouraging responsible whistle-blowing than in making reporters unmask their sources. Major stories from Watergate to Enron would not have come to light without the use of confidential sources.

The privilege that the Senate measure would provide journalists is not absolute. For example, when a disclosure would implicate national security, reporters would still be forced to turn over their notes or reveal news sources. But the legislation shields journalists from being used by law enforcement as an investigative arm. Turning to reporters for information would be a last step, and even then a judge would have to weigh the impact of the disclosure on future news gathering.

A majority of states already provide some form of statutory protection to reporters, and in many places where no shield law exists, state courts have established a reporters' privilege through rulings. This broad support underscores the general understanding that news stories vital to the public interest would not get told without some protection for confidentiality.

Uncovering the truth about what government is doing, so it can be held accountable, is more important than uncovering the name of the source in most instances. Congress needs to pass a federal shield law to make clear that protecting freedom of the press is in the national interest.