Bristol Herald Courier – Anonymous sources necessary to expose wrongs

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/30/2007 12:54:28
• In: Shield law editorials

Bristol (Va.) Herald Courier
Oct. 21, 2007

Abu Ghraib. Walter Reed. Warrantless wiretapping.

Without the use of anonymous sources, none of those stories ever would have been seen the light of day. Which is exactly what the Bush administration - arguably the most secretive in modern history - wanted.

And which is why this president and only 21 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (20 of them Republicans) oppose a federal shield law to protect reporters from a Sophie's choice: being forced in federal court to reveal confidential sources, or face jail time.

The Founding Fathers never intended for reporters to be extensions of law enforcement or the government establishment. And for 31/2 decades, journalists have advanced that argument in support of a federal shield law.

On Tuesday, lawmakers overwhelmingly signaled that they got the message. The Free Flow of Information Act, written by Southwest Virginia's own U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, passed the House by a staggering margin of 398-21.

When was the last time nearly 400 members of Congress agreed on anything?

"It was absolutely stunning," says Boucher, a Democrat who has represented Southwest Virginia for a quarter-century.

Boucher, who wrote the bill and first advanced it in 2005, had 70-plus co-sponsors, including a Republican's Republican, Mike Pence of Indiana.

"As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press," Pence said on the House floor Tuesday, as quoted in a story published by The Los Angeles Times. "The concentrations of power should be subject to investigation."

The law (see Boucher's column below for specifics) does not grant journalists an absolute privilege. There are common-sense provisions for compelling reporters to name names if lives and national security are on the line.

But this law forces prosecutors to exhaust other means and not head straight to the newspaper office with their subpoenas.

Most newspapers, including this one, work diligently to avoid the use of confidential sources. We use them rarely - and only if their information is supported by at least one and usually additional sources; if their motivation is in the public's best interest and not just their own; and if naming them would subject them to professional or personal retribution.

Without anonymous sources, Watergate would be just a Washington complex and not the name of the most infamous political scandal in American history.

In a throwback to Nixon, the current White House has used the threat - and, in some cases, the reality - of jail to punish journalists for exposing their misdeeds.

Reporter subpoenas used to be rare; under the Bush administration, Congress has documented at least 36 such reporter subpoenas.

"The time for that has ended," says Boucher. "The most important information oftentimes comes from confidential sources who without the assurance of confidentiality would not bring sensitive matters to public scrutiny. ... There has to be a balance between protecting national security and protecting the public's right to know."

Where do we go from here? The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the measure in a few weeks; the vote should go well judging by the Senate's Judiciary's Committee's recent 15-2 vote to advance the measure.

Then the minor differences between the House and Senate bills would have to be reconciled. Boucher is optimistic a federal shield law could become the law of the land by early next year - even over Bush's threatened veto.