Blog

Florida Today — Our views: Right to know (Aug. 12)

Federal shield act is needed to protect free flow of information
Floriday Today, Melbourne
August 12, 2010

A strong, free press guaranteed by the Founding Fathers at the top of the Bill of Rights relies heavily on the ability of journalists to protect the identity of sources.

Federal shield act is needed to protect free flow of information
Floriday Today, Melbourne
August 12, 2010

A strong, free press guaranteed by the Founding Fathers at the top of the Bill of Rights relies heavily on the ability of journalists to protect the identity of sources.

Otherwise, too many investigations into governmental or private-sector wrongdoing would never get off the ground.

Without the shield of anonymity, individuals with important behind-the-scenes knowledge often won’t come forward for fear of retribution if their names got out, such as firing or even physical harm.

When that happens, the public remains uninformed about stories ranging from improper actions by elected officials to corporate corruption.

That said, we believe anonymous sources should be used only rarely, in cases when a news investigation exposes facts vital to the public interest and when there’s no other way to report the information.

But those instances do occur, which is why Florida and most other states rightly have shield laws that provide journalists some protection from having to reveal confidential sources.

What’s still lacking is a federal shield law so that mounting judicial pressure from federal prosecutors to jail or fine journalists if they don’t hand over the names of sources doesn’t chill future investigations.

Congress has stalled six years on enacting that safeguard, in part because of opponents’ belief national security could be harmed if reporters can keep the sources of leaked material secret.

That could change this fall, however, if the Senate passes bipartisan Senate Bill 448, which addresses national security concerns while preserving key protections for the free flow of information.

The bill gives law enforcement access to critical information if national security interests are at stake.

But, wisely, it also allows reporters who have been subpoenaed to testify about sources to whom they’ve pledged confidentiality the right to ask a judge to quash the subpoena rather than impose stiff penalties, including jail time.

Judges would follow specific guidelines in deciding whether sources should be revealed, The compromise safeguards public safety but also the critical work that investigative journalists do in digging up and reporting on information powerful interests fight to keep hidden.

That, in turn, protects the workings of democracy, which withers on the vine without a well-informed citizenry.

The federal bill would also streamline state laws on protection of confidential sources, now a confusing hodgepodge, another plus.

An amendment being crafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would also tackle the latest controversial turn in the fast-evolving world of information dissemination online:

WikiLeaks’ posting of thousands of pages of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan on its website.

Schumer’s and Feinstein’s amendment clarifies the proposed federal shield law doesn’t apply to nontraditional news sources such as WikiLeaks, which could still be prosecuted for irresponsible leaks.

Proponents of the shield law say it could actually discourage more unfiltered and potentially dangerous data dumping.

That’s because whistleblowers would better trust established news groups to act responsibly with leaked material, including fact checking and withholding of sources’ identities to the extent allowed by law.

The free press is obligated to observe the highest possible ethical standards in the use confidential sources, a duty that will be strengthened under a federal shield law.

The Senate should move swiftly to pass the law and protect the public’s right to know.

Archive

Contributors