Two weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a bill that would create a shield law allowing journalists some protection to keep sources confidential.
The bill, called the Free Flow of Information Act, had support from the House Judiciary Committee. Journalists nationwide were ecstatic about what this could mean for their work.’
As it stands now, federal law allows prosecutors to force journalists to turn over the names of their sources. The media is supposed to be a government watchdog, a difficult position when the government has this much power.’
‘The heart of the issue is the willingness of government insiders to divulge information or records that pull the curtain back on misfeasance or malfeasance in the federal government or corporate America. Many sources refuse to step forward for fear of reprisal,’ the Dallas Morning News’ staff editorial said on Sept. 15.
Sources often share information with journalists who promise them anonymity. These people request anonymity for the same reason persons are given immunity in a courtroom.
If a journalist offers to protect someone who was involved in or knows about a crime, they will be more likely to divulge additional information. This is one way to catch the big fish and tell a great story.
Two weeks ago, the Las Vegas Sun reported that the bill would not give journalists a complete right to keep a source confidential.
‘Free Flow legislation has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support. In 2008, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama both backed the ill-fated Senate bill,’ continued the Dallas Morning News’ editorial.
The legislation would prevent law enforcement from using journalists as a shortcut to a proper investigation.’
Federal courts, however, would have the right to order a journalist to divulge information in certain circumstances, including when an imminent threat exists.
Recently, the Free Flow of Information Act has been amended. It now excludes non-salaried journalists and bloggers from the proposed protections. Witnesses to crimes or acts of terrorism are also not given the privileges of the act.
This limits the definition of a journalist.’
Sen. Charles Schumer (D ‘- N.Y.) limited the definition as an individual who ‘obtains the information sought while working as a salaried employee of, or independent contractor for, an entity’- a. that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means; and b. that 1. publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical; 2. operates a radio or television broadcast station, network, cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; 3. operates a programming service; or 4. operates a news agency or wire service.’
This narrows the scope of the bill quite a bit. What about student newspapers? Will students be forbidden from having other jobs if they plan to write for the school paper?’
The amendment also seems to exclude the professional freelancer who, when interviewing, reporting and writing the story, has no idea whether it will be picked up by the Associated Press, a publication, a Web site or a blog.
‘ This is an unnecessary provision. There is no reason why this law should not extend to bloggers and unpaid journalists as well as salaried professionals.
As long as they are honest, they should also be protected. Editors and readers should be able to decide the journalists’ honesty and integrity, whether said journalists are students, salaried or freelance.’
The editors will decide if the finished product is published, while readers will decide whether the story holds water or the writer is full of it.
Conversations between journalists and their sources should be, to an extent, privileged.
The same rights of privacy and confidentiality should be granted to journalists as the clergy, attorneys and doctors have with the public. If the bill passes, journalists who misuse their professional rights should be subject to severe consequences.
We must ensure that we live in a free society and the government does not intimidate journalists. It should be the journalists who intimidate the government.
Matthew Keever is a communication junior and may be reached at [email protected]
