Followers of national news may have heard a thing or two this week about a proposed federal shield law.
The legislation, which remains in limbo in Congress, would establish legal protections under federal law for journalists who are protecting the identity of sources. Currently shield laws are in place in most states (including New York), but nothing exists on the federal level.
That gap (or safeguard, depending upon your position on the issue) has been exposed in recent years with cases involving the White House, particularly the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby matter in which a New York Times reporter went to jail for refusing to divulge a source.
The White House has fought the proposal, essentially saying it compromises national security.
But with my bias toward the news industry's stance firmly admitted up front, I think the administration is wrong on this one.
For starters, the legislation carves out exceptions for the specific situations that have been raised as concerns. Compelled disclosure of a source is permitted if it would prevent an act of terrorism or identified a terrorist, for example.
The biggest problem with the White House stance is that it sees basically no room for any compromise because of the Constitutional duty to protect the nation's security. But it somehow can get past another part of the Constitution - the First Amendment.
Shield laws are important because they allow journalists to fulfill the crucial government watchdog role that's needed in a strong democracy.
There are times when the only means for important truths to be aired about wrongdoing is through confidential sources. The classic modern example is the Watergate scandal that forced Richard Nixon out of the presidency.
That does not mean journalists should freely write stories using anonymous sources. Unfortunately, the overuse of anonymous sources by the media has probably eroded some of the public support for a federal shield law.
Responsible news organizations have strong policies that limit the use of confidential sources. This newspaper and many others would only use one if there was no other means to get the information. The information itself must carry significant impact. And the source who seeks protection must have a strong reason for doing so. Finally, when such a source is used, the article or broadcast should convey as much information as possible about the source and why the source is being protected.
At a local level, we rarely rely on confidential sources. But it's nice to know we have a state shield law in place if we do.
Hopefully some day the same can be said for the federal government.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's column appears Saturdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
That gap (or safeguard, depending upon your position on the issue) has been exposed in recent years with cases involving the White House, particularly the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby matter in which a New York Times reporter went to jail for refusing to divulge a source.
The White House has fought the proposal, essentially saying it compromises national security.
But with my bias toward the news industry's stance firmly admitted up front, I think the administration is wrong on this one.
For starters, the legislation carves out exceptions for the specific situations that have been raised as concerns. Compelled disclosure of a source is permitted if it would prevent an act of terrorism or identified a terrorist, for example.
The biggest problem with the White House stance is that it sees basically no room for any compromise because of the Constitutional duty to protect the nation's security. But it somehow can get past another part of the Constitution - the First Amendment.
Shield laws are important because they allow journalists to fulfill the crucial government watchdog role that's needed in a strong democracy.
There are times when the only means for important truths to be aired about wrongdoing is through confidential sources. The classic modern example is the Watergate scandal that forced Richard Nixon out of the presidency.
That does not mean journalists should freely write stories using anonymous sources. Unfortunately, the overuse of anonymous sources by the media has probably eroded some of the public support for a federal shield law.
Responsible news organizations have strong policies that limit the use of confidential sources. This newspaper and many others would only use one if there was no other means to get the information. The information itself must carry significant impact. And the source who seeks protection must have a strong reason for doing so. Finally, when such a source is used, the article or broadcast should convey as much information as possible about the source and why the source is being protected.
At a local level, we rarely rely on confidential sources. But it's nice to know we have a state shield law in place if we do.
Hopefully some day the same can be said for the federal government.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's column appears Saturdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 2 comment(s)
GiveMeLiberty wrote on Aug 5, 2008 3:43 PM:
If the new industry didn't spend so much time chipping away at the second amendment, perhaps the fed.gov would still be sufficiently scared of trying to kill the first amendment. "
AJ wrote on Aug 2, 2008 9:46 AM: