Blog

Beloit Daily News — Federal shield law is needed

Beloit (Wis.) Daily News
Aug. 02, 2007

Limited federal shield for journalists serves public interest.

USUALLY, WE PREFER to avoid expressing opinions that might fall into the “shop-talk” category. That's because we don't want to harangue readers about matters that mi

Beloit (Wis.) Daily News
Aug. 02, 2007

Limited federal shield for journalists serves public interest.

USUALLY, WE PREFER to avoid expressing opinions that might fall into the “shop-talk” category. That's because we don't want to harangue readers about matters that might seem self-serving.

However, the topic of a federal shield for journalists' use of confidential sources is not self-serving. To the contrary, the public interest would be well served by passage of a bill now pending in Congress.

An identical proposal is working its way through both the House and Senate. The measure would shield reporters and editors from revealing the identity of confidential sources, except in rare circumstances. Basically, a judge would have to determine the information was essential to a case and could not reasonably be obtained any other way.

MOST STATES have similar shield laws, but state statutes do not apply in federal cases. Journalists who run afoul of the federal system have no protections whatsoever.

As a matter of policy, in the past, federal prosecutors consistently declined to confront journalists with subpoenas and jail threats in an effort to coerce them into revealing confidential sources. But times have changed.

For example, the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case immediately started slapping journalists with subpoenas - and jailed a New York Times reporter for refusing to divulge sources. Likewise, two San Francisco reporters - who broke the Barry Bonds/BALCO steroids story - were threatened with more jail time than anyone convicted as participants in the scandal.

The number of federal subpoenas being fired off to newspapers and broadcasters is increasing at alarming rates, largely because prosecutors find it easier to squeeze reporters than do their own investigations.

SO WHAT'S WRONG with that? Plenty.

The use of confidential sources can be essential to news gathering in the most difficult, sensitive stories. It is not hard to understand why. The people who know the secrets - like the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, or the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman - may want the truth to come out but justifiably fear the wrath of superiors. If journalists are unable to speak confidentially with whistle-blowers - and give sources reasonable assurance their identity will be protected - the only information the public sees may be the officially approved version.

Examples abound of reporters - using confidential sources - proving the official version is a lie.

Which may be why opponents of a federal reporters' shield vigorously want to deny the protection, not so much to scare the journalists as to silence those who might reveal secrets.

WE BELIEVE the public interest is best served by giving journalists and their sources at least some measure of protection from lazy or unscrupulous or vindictive prosecutors, who may be acting in the political interests of their superiors.

We also believe that journalists are citizens first and reporters second. So a provision allowing a judge to balance the interests of confidentiality against prosecutorial needs makes sense.

The shield bill is supported by both congressional representatives, Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Republican Paul Ryan, as well as by both U.S. senators, Democrats Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold. We think they're right. This bill should become law.

Archive

Contributors