Blog

Hattiesburg American — Our senators should support shield law

Hattiesburg (Miss.) American
August 15, 2008

United States Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker should be ashamed for their action – or inaction – on a bill that would provide a federal shield law for journalists.

Cochran voted against bringing the bill to the Sena

Hattiesburg (Miss.) American
August 15, 2008

United States Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker should be ashamed for their action – or inaction – on a bill that would provide a federal shield law for journalists.

Cochran voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a vote before Congress convened for its August recess. Wicker did not vote. The shield law would allow journalists to refuse to reveal information and sources obtained during the news-gathering process. The law contains some exceptions, including where national security is at issue.

The privilege extended to journalists is similar to that given to attorneys, clergy and medical professionals.

The law – called the Free Flow of Information Act – is opposed by the White House, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Department, among others. We have to wonder why those agencies and officials are so fearful of a shield law for journalists?

Like Cochran and Wicker, most of the U.S. senators who voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor are Republicans.

But there is one powerful Republican who supports the legislation. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, in a May 5 column in the Washington Post, said, “The importance of a free press is so woven into the fabric of our history that Americans often take it for granted. But when we observe fledgling democracies around the world, Americans can see just how essential a free media are to democracy – and how easily they can be chilled.

“If we are to have a free press, it is necessary to protect the relationship between journalists and trusted sources to whom journalists have promised confidentiality.”

The Society of Professional Journalists says opponents of the measure are concerned about who would be covered by the law and possible risks to national security.

But the bill addresses both of those concerns.

It would provide coverage for anyone who “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes information of public interest” for dissemination to the public.

The bill’s Section 5 requires journalists to reveal confidential sources and documents if, by a preponderance of evidence, a federal court finds that the protected information would assist in preventing a specific case of terrorism against the U.S. or significant harm to national security that would outweigh the public interest in news gathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens, according to the SPJ.

The last word on this issue goes to Specter, who noted that “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 encourage Cochran and Wicker to support this important piece of legislation when they return to Washington after the recess.

Archive

Contributors