Blog

Arizona Daily Star – Reporters' 'shields' really protect public

Our view: Government should not be able to compel testimony from journalists who are doing what they are supposed to

Arizona Daily Star, Tucson
Oct. 21, 2007

The life of a democracy depends on the free flow of information. When this flow is interrupted or bloc

Our view: Government should not be able to compel testimony from journalists who are doing what they are supposed to

Arizona Daily Star, Tucson
Oct. 21, 2007

The life of a democracy depends on the free flow of information. When this flow is interrupted or blocked, those who have information can end up controlling those who don't.

If we don't know what's going on, we can't make intelligent decisions. Taken to its extreme, we end up a nation where people have the right to vote but lack the ability to know what they're voting about.

In a free country, the press acts as an intermediary between those who know and those who don't.

Which is why it's essential that newspapers and other media outlets be permitted to remain independent to report news without fear of being subpoenaed to divulge their sources.

Contrary to the beliefs of some politicians, newspapers are not an arm of the government. In fact, when they are perceived as cooperating with government, their credibility vanishes.

The issue is trust.

Newspapers often act in an adversarial role toward government, uncovering, for instance, the misdeeds of President Richard Nixon

This year, after nearly 100 attempts over three decades, the U.S. House of Representatives followed the actions of some 49 states and passed a so-called "shield" bill that makes it difficult for the government to compel reporters to divulge their confidential sources.

The federal shield law passed in the House overwhelmingly, 398 to 21, on Tuesday with 176 Republicans joining 222 Democrats. That means there are more than the two-thirds necessary to override President Bush's threatened veto.

The battle has now moved to the Senate, where Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has raised numerous concerns about the bill's reach.

The Senate version of the bill has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee, also with broad bipartisan support, but with some 11 amendments that Kyl introduced.

Kyl says the original bill was "sloppily put together" and raised a number of specific concerns.

His main concern, he says, is with striking a reasonable balance between the need for a free flow of information and the need to protect the public and maintain national security.

He points to a situation in which information is received about a terrorist attack that's being planned and notes that someone has to make a judgment about whether it's more important to protect the public or protect a newspaper's right to not divulge a source.

Kyl is also concerned that the bill doesn't clearly define whom it covers, presumably requiring that a definition of a working newsperson be defined.

"The press needs to be independent," Kyl says. "Bureaucrats are always trying to hide the ball, but you cannot have an unqualified privilege . . . the newspaper association has tilted the bill too far toward protecting sources."

Perhaps, as Kyl suggests, he's just trying to tighten a loosely written bill to make it more precise, but we have little sympathy for actions that dilute the line separating government and an independent press.

Politicians, and the Bush administration particular, have used the all-encompassing mantra of "national security" more for their own convenience than to actually protect the public. The phrase has typically been used as an excuse to prevent the press and public from learning about government misdeeds.

Who would decide, for example, whether it was in the national interest to suppress news accounts of prisoners tortured in Abu Ghraib, or American veterans being maltreated at Walter Reed Army Hospital?

It is a disservice to the American public to allow Congress to define responsible journalism.

Newspapers are not perfect, but they are much more trustworthy free of governmental controls than they are when they are perceived as an ally or extension of the state.

Archive

Contributors