Blog

Blade — Needed: federal shield law

The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
July 26, 2008

NOBODY likes to hear from a messenger bringing bad news, any more than we want to hear a doctor tell us we have serious, though curable, cancer. But just as we would be foolish not to listen to the doctor, our society would be in trouble

The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
July 26, 2008

NOBODY likes to hear from a messenger bringing bad news, any more than we want to hear a doctor tell us we have serious, though curable, cancer. But just as we would be foolish not to listen to the doctor, our society would be in trouble indeed if it weren't for the ability of journalists to expose corruption and misconduct, especially in government at all levels.

In some cases, that is seldom possible without the careful use of confidential sources. Richard Nixon, for example, might never have had to resign had it not been for the source, who turned out to be a high government official, known as “Deep Throat.”

For years, the confidentiality of sources was generally understood and respected, with a few exceptions. But in the last few years, the climate has dramatically changed. Two reporters, including the New York Times' Judith Miller, were sentenced to jail; another faced large fines if she refused to reveal her sources. More than 40 other reporters have been threatened with contempt of court if they didn't reveal their confidential sources. All this strongly indicates the need for the U.S. Senate to pass a bill establishing a federal “shield law” that would protect reporters from having to reveal their sources.

Forty-nine states already have some form of shield legislation, but a national law is also needed. The bill now before the Senate, the Free Flow of Information Act, has broad support from both conservatives and liberals, and passed the House last fall by an overwhelming and veto-proof 398-21 vote. That's important, because the Bush Administration bitterly opposes it. But those who support it include both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, one of whom is all but certain to be the next president of the United States. Forty-two state attorneys general are also backing this act.

Reporters are not and should not be above the law, and the Free Flow of Information Act has safeguards. It allows judges to ask for the identity of a source in cases where that would help prevent a terrorist act or where failing to disclose a source would significantly threaten national security.

In a section of the bill that is certain to worry reporters, judges are also authorized to compel disclosure if concealing the name of a confidential source could significantly harm a prosecutor's case.

We hope prosecutors and judges will attempt to use that provision in a bare minimum of cases. We also hope this bill won't encourage the news media to use anonymous sources more than absolutely necessary.

Wherever possible, news sources should be identified so readers can judge their reliability for themselves. But there are lots of exceptions, from the Pulitzer-prize winning work The Blade has done to the stories revealing steroid use in major league sports. Ohio and Michigan's senators should join the House in passing this bill by a veto-proof margin.

Archive

Contributors