The federal media shield law being debated in Washington is a compromise, which by definition means it is not everything journalists had hoped for.
But it is a laudable step that affords a good measure of protection to journalists who refuse for good reason to reveal their sources.
We hope federal lawmakers pass it and that the president signs it. It’s an important protection for the Fourth Estate and its role in keeping government in check.
These are troubling times for the reporter’s privilege, which is the right not to be compelled to reveal one’s sources. Several courts have found that no such privilege exists.
Over the past several years, more than 40 reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned in federal court about their notes, their sources or their work product, according to the Newspaper Association of America.
In order for the press to expose wrongdoing in government and business, it is sometimes necessary to protect the relationship journalists have with their sources.
Several recent, important stories were a result of confidential sources, including abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The bill is a recognition that a healthy democracy depends on a free and independent media, which includes traditional reporters as well as unpaid bloggers.
However, the measure is not a blanket protection. A key compromise in the bill involves a provision that addresses national security cases.
A sticking point, heretofore, had been the Obama administration’s objections to part of the bill that required a balancing test in national security cases. In those circumstances, a judge would have to decide whether the public interest in knowing certain facts outweighed national security interests.
The compromise waives the balancing test in narrow circumstances. If the government can prove that disclosure of certain information is key to its efforts in stopping or mitigating an act of terrorism, there will be no balancing test.
However, in order to get a waiver, the government would have to make a specific case with facts. The bill would not allow the government merely to claim national security risks without being specific about the nature of the issue.
The bill, called the Free Flow of Information Act, is set to be considered Thursday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he believes the measure will move quickly through the committee and the full Senate.
The bill isn’t perfect, but it is a big step forward that will afford statutory protections to reporters who are slapped with a federal court subpoena. We hope to see it become law.
