Victoria Advocate — ‘The only security of all is in a free press’

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 05/28/2008 17:42:40
• In: Shield law editorials

Victoria (Texas) Advocate
May 25, 2008

Our government works because of a marvelously constructed system of checks and balances.

Our forefathers had the vision to create the three branches of government and give each the ability to hold the other in check. We might question the effectiveness of each at times, but clearly the judicial, executive and legislative branches serve to keep any one person or group from becoming too powerful.

With these three branches, our forefathers also embraced and preserved in the First Amendment the concept of the Fourth Estate. Thomas Jefferson offered this famous quote advancing this principle: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

This watchdog role is why the Advocate and most news organizations fight subpoenas served on journalists by district attorneys and others. Yes, the judicial system is a cornerstone of our government, but it should not have the power to inhibit the work of the Fourth Estate.

This is not merely a philosophical discussion from another century. In a motion filed Thursday in Victoria courts, an Advocate attorney argued that the district attorney had no need to use a newspaper journalist as a weapon in his prosecutorial arsenal. To do so has a chilling effect on the newspaper’s ability to gather news.

Even Friday as a judge denied the newspaper’s motion to quash the subpoena served on the journalist, a source was calling the newsroom to express her fears. Why was she worried? She wondered whether her conversations with a reporter would be shared with a grand jury.

Sure, people who do nothing wrong should have nothing to hide. But we also know whistleblowers and others must at times speak out about wrongdoing at great personal risk to themselves. No one wants to think every call to a reporter might end up being repeated in court. Similarly, people want journalists out covering news, not testifying in secret proceedings. Having our reporter testify before a grand jury hurts our ability to cover the news.

To preserve our independence, we’ll continue to fight subpoenas against journalists. We respectfully disagree with the judge’s ruling in this case and with District Attorney Stephen Tyler’s filing of the subpoena in the first place. He can make his case without dragging into court a journalist who has been reporting on the actions of others. These others should be the target of any subpoenas or investigation.

If you care about how government functions, we encourage you to support a national shield law protecting journalists. The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 is pending before Congress. A key provision is the federal government could not compel a person covered by the shield to provide testimony or produce documents without first showing the need to do so by a “preponderance of evidence,” according to the Society of Professional Journalists.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, was an early proponent of this legislation. As a conservative, he understands the need for a free press.

More recently, he’s expressed concern about the definition of a journalist in this digital age. That’s certainly a technological hurdle to clear, but our forefathers clearly thought this challenge was worth the trouble.

A voracious reader, Jefferson also wrote about the abuses of the press. The news media certainly are and should be held in check by libel and privacy laws.

But Jefferson was clear about how a free press keeps government operating properly:

“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”