Times and Democrat – Bush should not derail shield law

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 10/30/2007 14:22:23
• In: Shield law editorials

The Times and Democrat, Orangeburg, S.C.
Oct. 19, 2007

ISSUE: Federal shield law

OUR VIEW: Law necessary to ensure press can be watchdog

Despite overwhelming U.S. House approval, legislation that would strengthen the press' watchdog role over government may not become law. The House voted 398-21 on Tuesday for a federal shield law that would provide limited protection for reporters in ensuring the confidentiality of sources in most federal court cases. Even if the bill passes the Senate, where it has been approved in committee, President Bush is threatening a veto.

The administration contends the law would encourage leaks of classified information. The privileges given to reporters "could severely frustrate -- and in some cases completely eviscerate -- the ability to investigate acts of terrorism or threats to national security."

The president should weigh any potential risk against the importance of a free press being able to perform its mission.

Under the law, reporters could still be compelled to disclose information on sources if that information is needed to prevent acts of terrorism or harm to the national security.

Journalists encounter difficulty in reporting stories as judges order them to disclose the identity of sources who provide valuable information in exchange for confidentiality. Judges are holding journalists in contempt of court for refusing to name anonymous sources.

Reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes and their work over the last few years in criminal and civil cases in federal court. Groundbreaking stories, such as conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and baseball steroid abuse, would not have been possible without confidential sources. The journalist is becoming the first stop, rather than the last resort, for civil litigants and prosecutors attempting to obtain the identity of confidential sources.

While press and public are one in the same in the right of access to their government, judges and lawmakers historically have recognized the need for certain reporting privileges if journalists are to fulfill their mission. One is limited immunity from being summoned to court to te.jpgy about sources and provide information available by other means.

In South Carolina, the General Assembly more than a decade ago passed a shield law. It grants news organizations limited protection against orders to testify and turn over information in cases about which they have reported. In total, 33 states have media shield statutes and 16 others have judicial precedents protecting reporters.

The same is not true on the federal level. The Supreme Court in 1972 ruled that journalist-source relationships were not protected under the Constitution, and currently reporters have no privileges to refuse to appear and te.jpgy in federal legal proceedings.

As researchers and investigators in their own right, reporters gather information pertaining to many incidents that end up in the court system. To routinely compel reporters to come forward with that information excuses the legal community from doing its homework and endangers the media's ability to gather information.

If you speak to a reporter and he or she promises that something you say will not be published, the promise is to be upheld. If it's not, among the least of your actions is a vow never to speak with the reporter again.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a conservative who cosponsored the bill with Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., summed up the reasoning for a federal shield law: "I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press." The act "is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know."

The House-passed legislation is at risk from an administration that has been known for secrecy. That's tragic. Approval of a federal shield law is in the interest of every American.