"Media Shield" Protects Terrorists

At least that's the spin from the White House, according to AP & The Guardian, reporting on yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on S 1419 (Reporters' Shield Bill):

The fight against terrorism would be undermined by a law to protect reporters from going to jail when they refuse to reveal their sources, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

DC and 31 states have shield laws - but there is no federal law. From The Boston Globe:

Deputy Attorney General James Comey canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee ... [i]n prepared remarks ... Comey said the measure would ''create serious impediments" to the Justice Department's ability ''to effectively enforce the law and fight terrorism."

''The bill is bad public policy primarily because it would bar the government from obtaining information about media sources -- even in the most urgent of circumstances affecting the public's health or safety or national security..."

Ironically, he cancelled to talk to Senators about the Patriot Act, which is up for renewal.

Despite DOJ reservations, the NY Times said the bill got a "positive" reception from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Other media reports called the reception "mixed." Prime sponsor Sen. Lugar (R-IN), said:

Compelling reporters to testify and, in particular, forcing them to reveal the identity of their confidential sources without extraordinary circumstances, hurts the public interest. The result will be that many whistle-blowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable to provide our constituents with information they have a right to know.

On the House side, the companion bill is sponsored by Rep Mike Pence (R-IN).

I believe there's a time and place for anonymity. I also believe that the media have gotten far too cozy using off-the-record comments ... which are often nothing more than political trial balloons .... or gossip. This is a far cry from "whistleblower" type anonymity.

I'm concerned by reports from Editor & Publisher that the Cleveland Plain Dealer is holding off on stories because of the use of anonymous sources and "illegally leaked documents." Are the stories in the public interest ... or are they titillation? The PD says the former:

The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the public doesn't hold either party -- politicians or journalists -- in very high esteem at the moment. Not that I blame them (too much).

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2005 : HR 581 , HR 3323, S 340 and S 1419 ; SR 7996 and HR 3323

Tags: Media, Politics