Birmingham News — A shield to protect reporters, sources

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/16/2007 15:52:16
• In: Shield law editorials

The Birmingham (Ala.) News
Oct. 16, 2007

THE ISSUE: U.S. House to vote on rules to govern whether journalists can protect their confidential sources.

The importance of a free, unencumbered press to our national identity and international example of democracy is underscored nowhere better than in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."

The Founding Fathers understood the vital role the media play in helping to ensure we live in a free society, in making certain citizens are well-informed, in serving as a watchdog over government corruption and abuse. Let's hope Congress understands these principles, as well.

The U.S. House today is deciding whether reporters will have a right to protect confidential sources. This isn't a new concept - 33 states (including Alabama) have shield laws in place and 16 others have recognized the privilege through court decisions. The House will vote today on "The Free Flow of Information Act," which has strong bipartisan support and will serve as a federal shield law to provide consistent, balanced rules for protecting the confidential relationship between reporters and their sources.

Sadly, not one of the seven Alabama representatives is among the 43 Democrats and 24 Republicans co-sponsoring this important bill. The hope is that today, they'll show their support by voting for the measure.

Nobody is arguing that reporters should have absolute protection. The bill understands that disclosure can be compelled if it will help prevent "an act of terrorism against the United States or other significant specified harm" to national security. A person who discloses trade secrets or certain financial or medical information that violates current law won't be protected, either.

But consider some of the stories that wouldn't be revealed if confidential sources weren't promised protection. There's no need to go as far back as "Deep Throat" and Watergate, the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. Stories that revealed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the Major League Baseball steroid use and the poor conditions for our wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center couldn't have been reported without the use of confidential sources.

Reporters shouldn't have to choose between going to prison or giving up a confidential source when they're going about their First Amendment duties.

The U.S. House must pass the federal shield law, and Alabama's seven votes need to be in the "yes" column. Continuing to have a free press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, demands it.