Times Union – Fight for the shield

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/23/2007 17:36:51
• In: Shield law editorials

Times Union, Albany, N.Y.
Oct. 18, 2007

Now that a federal shield law for reporters has gained momentum in Congress, President Bush is threatening a veto. Congressional leaders -- Republicans as well as Democrats -- must stand firm in the face of that threat, for the best of reasons: This is about the public's right to know, not about an unwarranted privilege for journalists. That explains why Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has joined with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to sponsor shield legislation in the Senate, and why Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., co-sponsored a shield bill in the House with Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. It's why all states except one have some form of shield protections for journalists.

These states realize, as do the sponsors and supporters of a federal shield law, that the public benefits when sources come to the press with allegations of government wrongdoing or other malfeasance. But these sources almost always ask reporters not to reveal their names, out of fear of reprisal. It's a system that has worked well at the state level for years.

It is needed at the federal level as well. That has been more than evident as more reporters have been called before federal courts in recent years by prosecutors demanding to know their sources. That places reporters, who have promised their sources confidentiality, at risk of jail time unless they cooperate.

It also threatens the public's right to know. For example, the public learned about the Abu Ghraib scandal, the poor treatment of veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the steroid scandal in major league baseball largely because reporters agreed to protect the identity of their sources, even if that meant going to jail. But how many other stories have gone unreported because sources feared that reporters, under threat of prison, might crack and expose them?

Predictably, the White House is raising national security concerns as the reasons for a veto. But that is pure smoke screen. The House measure, which passed 398 to 21 on Tuesday, specifically allows the courts to compel reporters to reveal their sources if necessary to prevent acts of terrorism. The Senate version, which cleared the Judiciary Committee earlier this month, contains a similar provision.

Thus, it is difficult to fathom why the White House is saying the House bill "could severely frustrate -- and in some cases completely eviscerate -- the ability to investigate acts of terrorism or threats to national security."

How so, when it is there -- in black and white -- that no such danger exists? THE ISSUE: President Bush threatens to veto shield legislation.

THE STAKES: The public's right to know is at risk.