Blog

Daily Freeman — Federal protections

Daily Freeman, Kingston, N.Y.
Feb. 20, 2008

A federal shield law that would give protection to confidential sources of news stories is in the home stretch. It’s now up to the U.S. Senate to overcome the objections of a handful of senators to finish the job in this congress

Daily Freeman, Kingston, N.Y.
Feb. 20, 2008

A federal shield law that would give protection to confidential sources of news stories is in the home stretch. It’s now up to the U.S. Senate to overcome the objections of a handful of senators to finish the job in this congressional session.

The need for federal protections remains acute during what has become an unabated assault on journalistic independence by the U.S. Justice Department under the Bush administration.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors, which has led lobbying efforts for federal legislation that would mirror similar protections extended by most states, notes that reporters from USA Today and CBS News are among the most recent news journalists to face contempt charges for refusing to reveal sources. The reporters from both news outlets are being pressured to reveal sources from their reporting on the mailing of anthrax to media and congressional offices in 2001. And national security reporter James Risen, of The New York Times, has been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury this month, presumably to identify sources for his 2006 book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.”

The House already has overwhelmingly passed, 398-21, its version of the Free Flow of Information Act. To their credit, all of the Mid-Hudson members of the House were on board.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed the Senate’s own version of the bill, but the objections of a handful of senators and, of course, the Department of Justice (read: “the Bush administration”) have blocked a vote on the Senate floor, where either the Senate version or the House version could be considered.

While passage of the separate Senate bill would subject the legislation to a conference committee to resolve differences and reopen some key protections for reconsideration that could result in dilution or elimination, media advocates support either bill.

As well they should. As the legislation languishes in this election year, there’s no sense in quibbling about the details. Either version would advance the cause.

As we have previously noted, the legislation would not give reporters and their sources unqualified immunity from subpoena. The legislation would balance the interests of justice against the very real public interest in a free press that vigorously investigates wrong-doing, sometimes relying on confidential sources to do so.

The goal of the legislation is to make journalists the last resort of prosecutors and civil litigants, rather than the first.

Forty-nine states already recognize such protections, either through statute or precedent.

It’s time for the federal government to do so as well.

Archive

Contributors