Grand Rapids Press – A needed shield

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/30/2007 14:13:00
• In: Shield law editorials

The Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press
Oct. 21, 2007

The role of the press in a democracy is important enough that the nation's founders enshrined press freedom in the First Amendment. Implicit in that prominent placement is a skepticism about the power embedded in government and a recognition of the clear need for an aggressive watchdog against incompetence, corruption and other misconduct in high places.

The U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged the press' indispensable role by passing a bill that would protect reporters, in most instances, against having to reveal confidential sources. Given recent instances of the government bringing subpoenas against news organizations to try to force such disclosure, the bill is more than justified. Forty-nine states, including Michigan, have similar "shield" laws. The federal government has, until now, resisted. President Bush continues to oppose it, threatening a veto.

Journalists frequently rely on confidential sources as the only sure way to obtain crucial information. Anonymous sources often risk their livelihoods, and in rare instances their lives, to help reporters.

The threat that they could be named makes it less likely that they'll come forward to, say, reveal horrible conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center, unmask the Enron debacle or rat out steroid abusers in Major League baseball -- all stories that depended on confidential sources.

Anyone who doubts the importance of a robust press to ensure the free flow of information need only look to countries such as Russia, Iran and China, where the media, and citizens, are under varying degrees of state control.

The bill that passed the House wouldn't provide absolute protection for reporters, nor should it. Journalists are first of all citizens. They can't be allowed to compromise national security, protect terrorists or keep prosecutors from information crucial to criminal investigations, if there is no other avenue to that evidence.

In cases where withholding information could significantly harm national security, the presumption in this bill would be that a journalist would hand over the goods. A news organization could avoid disclosure but a judge would have to rule that the public interest is more important than unmasking the confidential source. This new legislation clearly does not put the press above or outside the rule of law.

The bill passed the House on a solid 398-21 vote. Every member of Congress from Michigan voted for it. We would expect similar support from Michigan Sens. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing.

Broad, bipartisan backing makes Mr. Bush's resistance all the more inexplicable. Mr. Bush is opposed on the grounds that the bill could in some cases "eviscerate" the ability of the government to investigate acts of terrorism or national security threats. That objection should be taken with a grain -- or truckload -- of salt. His administration, like others, has been embarrassed by news reports that have relied on confidential sources.

There are enough safeguards in this bill to balance the right of citizens to be protected with the equally compelling right for them to know what their government is doing. Nothing could be more essential to a free society.