Blog

Contra Costa Times — A federal shield law

Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.
August 6, 2008

It's disappointing to see that Senate Republicans successfully stalled a bill that would have protected journalists from having to reveal their sources in some federal courts. The fight for freedom of the press con

Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.
August 6, 2008

It's disappointing to see that Senate Republicans successfully stalled a bill that would have protected journalists from having to reveal their sources in some federal courts. The fight for freedom of the press continues.

The media shield measure was passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives in October, but it became a partisan victim, of all things, of gas prices in the Senate. The Republicans contended that the Senate should act on an energy bill that would promote more domestic oil and gas production, such as offshore drilling, while the Democrats wanted to tackle the media shield bill first.

Why couldn't senators do both? Apparently, this is a standard practice in Washington. The Bush administration strongly opposes any media shield, claiming it would jeopardize national security.

This administration has successfully tied the Constitution into knots and would love to have reporters giving up their sources in federal courts to make things much easier for the Justice Department.

Without such shielding of sources, whistleblowers won't be as apt to come forward and reveal wrongdoing within the government, thus, transparency is lost and the public's security is compromised.

Shielding sources is fundamental to investigative journalism and the pursuit of important stories, and the foundation of being a government watchdog.

If it weren't for confidential sources, for instance, Watergate would've been successfully swept under the rug. Of course, there are legitimate exceptions covered by the bill, such as revealing sources in anti-terrorism cases as well as information that could prevent a murder or kidnapping.

Yet a disturbing trend is taking place. We agree with proponents of a federal media shield law that there's been a flurry of attempts to force reporters to give up their sources' identities, particularly under the Bush administration, like the case of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller who was jailed for 85 days for failing to reveal who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. What's ironic is a similar media shield law is already in place in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

Changes in media have not helped the situation, between print, television and the Web. Republicans claim identifying who is a reporter and who isn't has clouded the situation, but a compromise by proponents defined a journalist as “anyone who regularly gathers and reports information of public interest with the intent of disseminating it to the public.”

What's important here is the fight for a shield law must continue in Congress through the next administration and beyond.

We cannot allow the government or anyone to intimidate reporters into giving up legitimate sources who have given valuable information for the benefit of our democratic society.

It's high time we honor one of the most valuable fundamental rights of our Constitution.

Archive

Contributors