Blog

Press-Telegram — Protecting reporters' sources

Shield law is important for journalists and the public.

Press-Telegram, Long Beach, Calif.
August 24, 2008

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is a free and independent press.

For the press and other media to act as a check on governmen

Shield law is important for journalists and the public.

Press-Telegram, Long Beach, Calif.
August 24, 2008

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is a free and independent press.

For the press and other media to act as a check on government corruption, it's sometimes necessary to protect the relationship between journalists and their confidential sources.

That's why the U.S. Senate needs to approve a federal shield law for journalists. The House passed a similar bill last fall. The Senate so far has not taken up S. 2035, also known as The Free Flow of Information Act.

The bill has bipartisan support, but the Bush administration is lobbying heavily against it.

“I've been around a while, and I've never seen such an avalanche of letters coordinated in such an unrealistic, emotional, unwarranted attack on a piece of legislation,” Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told The New York Times this past spring.

The Justice Department has argued that any media shield legislation would threaten national security and impede the investigation of crimes.

But Sen. Specter, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, disagrees. He recently wrote in a column for The Washington Post that said, “We must protect national security and preserve effective law enforcement. But a media shield law would not primarily be protection for journalists; it would be protection for the public and for our form of government.”

We couldn't agree more, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue. In fact, the House overwhelmingly approved its shield law bill with the help of members of both major parties, including conservatives like Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana.

“What's a conservative like me doing passing a bill that helps reporters?” he asked during House debate last fall.

Well, according to Pence, “the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press.” Shielding reporters' confidential sources, he said, “is not about protecting reporters; it's about protecting the public's right to know.”

If sources know they're going to be protected, they may be more willing to expose wrongdoing in government and business. That often leads to information that people can use to make more informed decisions.

Over the years, major stories have been broken using anonymous sources and without the use of a federal shield law: the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Enron.

But in recent years, more and more reporters are being questioned or subpoenaed about their confidential sources, and a handful have been jailed. Throwing journalists in jail for refusing to reveal confidential sources hardly sends the right message to the world about our system of government.

Forty-nine states have laws that help protect the often delicate relationship between journalists and sources. (What's Wyoming thinking?)

We think there should be similar protections at the federal level.

Archive

Contributors