Grand Rapids Press — Shield law needed to protect reporter sources

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 03/20/2008 11:31:18
• In: Shield law editorials

The Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press
March 19, 2008

Reporters frequently rely on anonymous sources to uncover important stories, including, in recent years, revelations about the subhuman conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center and the high-level scheming at Enron.

Sources can risk their jobs, in some cases their lives, to pass on information that is guarded by government or business but crucial to public understanding. That is why 49 states, including Michigan, recognize through law or court decisions a journalistic privilege to reasonable protections against revealing anonymous sources. The laws offer some assurance to whistle-blowers that their actions -- often revealing incompetence, corruption or misconduct in powerful places -- won't be revealed.

Federal law should offer similar protection. A bill awaiting a vote in the Senate would do just that. It deserves passage, and support from Michigan's Sens. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing.

A similar measure has passed the House by a substantial bipartisan vote of 398-21. The Senate version is actually weaker in its protections than the House bill. President Bush has nevertheless threatened to veto the "shield law," arguing, against the evidence, that it could compromise national security.

The right to protect anonymous sources would not be absolute under the bills, nor should it be. The measures would give federal judges the power to jail journalists who refuse to name sources when those sources have leaked information that compromises national security. That provision should satisfy Mr. Bush's concerns. Journalists are citizens first and ought not be permitted to protect terrorists, expose others to harm or enable criminal wrong-doing.

Nevertheless, the need for a federal shield law is driven home by a growing number of subpoenas for confidential sources. The case of former USA Today reporter Toni Locy is particularly compelling.

Ms. Locy, now a university professor, relied on law enforcement officials for information about a "person of interest" in the anthrax attacks that followed Sept. 11, 2001.

Stephen Hatfill was identified as the suspect, but never charged with the attacks. Now Mr. Hatfill is suing the government for damages. His lawyers hope to compel reporters to disclose who told them about him and the investigation. Ms. Locy is being threatened with fines of up to $5,000 a day.

The fines, temporarily on hold because of higher court action, would by decree have to come from Ms. Locy's own pocket, and not her news organization or relatives. In other words, the court is threatening her with personal bankruptcy -- not because national security is on the line, but because a plaintiff hopes to win a sizable settlement.

That kind of legal action threatens the free flow of information, scares off confidential sources and generally sides with the interests of those who want to avoid public scrutiny. The Senate can change that by passing a federal shield law that assures those who blow the whistle on corruption that their cover won't be blown in return.