Press-Citizen — Time to pass a federal shield law for journalists

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 08/23/2010 08:46:00
• In: Shield law editorials

Iowa City Press-Citizen, Iowa
August 16, 2010

Congress is again debating the Free Flow of Information Act, also known as the Federal Shield Law. This legislation would protect journalists from having to turn over certain information to courts -- including the identity of a source, story notes or documents.

The legislation has been adopted twice in recent years by the U.S. House and by the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 2009, but then has gotten stalled in the U.S. Senate. It's long past time for an up or down vote on the legislation, and our two Iowa senators should push for it.

The Press-Citizen almost never prints information provided solely by confidential sources. However, when our editors do find the information is of such public importance that they promise to extend confidentiality, they rely on Iowa law.

In fact, since Maryland passed the nation's first reporters shield law in 1896, every state except Wyoming has passed laws to protect reporters' ability to shield sources -- just as states have laws to protect information told to physicians and members of the clergy. Such laws have helped allow whistleblowers to risk making public information that is necessary for improving public safety or stamping out government corruption.

But the states' protection doesn't apply when federal law is at issue. And that means many important national stories -- like that of the disgraceful treatment of wounded soldiers at the Army's Walter Reed hospital or that of the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- leave reporters and editors at the mercy of prosecutors and judges who want the names of sources. In recent years, whatever minimal protection journalists could expect on the federal level has eroded further as federal prosecutors have dragged reporters to court and judges have threatened them with jail time or hefty fines unless they cooperate.

Such tactics threaten to eclipse the public's right to know what its government is doing when no one else is looking.

Opponents argue that the shield law would damage the nation's ability to protect national security information. Yet bipartisan sponsors have been modifying the bill to grant the government more authority in the case of a national emergency than in the version passed by the House last year. And the law would not protect journalists if they witnessed a crime or participated in one.

As Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., wrote in a Washington Post guest column in 2008, "(The) courts need guidance from Congress regarding the standards they should apply to the varying facts and circumstances -- to the evidence -- when a reporter refuses to reveal confidential sources. That is what a media shield bill would do. It would not be a drastic change in the law, but it would be an important one."

President Obama, while still a candidate, voiced his support of the legislation. We urge Congress to send him a bill that will help protect the public's right to know.