FORTY-NINE STATES have laws that protect journalists from revealing confidential sources. These shield laws recognize that, at times, the only way journalists can obtain information critical to public disclosure of wrongdoing is to grant confidentiality to their sources.

Without confidential sources, there would have been no revelations about NSA wiretapping, CIA dark sites and the practice of rendition, in which individuals are sent to other countries for interrogation and possible torture.

Unfortunately, there is no such protection for journalists and their sources in federal law despite several attempts to write a shield law similar to most state laws. As a result, there is no standard in federal court to decide when testimony can be subpoenaed from reporters.

This is an unacceptable situation because it allows federal courts to intimidate and penalize journalists who are protecting confidential sources.

When journalists are jailed, fined or forced to reveal their sources, it makes it increasingly difficult to obtain critical information that would be forthcoming only if the sources were assured of confidentiality.

Opponents of a federal shield law say that it would obstruct efforts by law enforcement officials to collect evidence and solve crimes.

However, John Sturm, president and CEO of the Newspaper Association of America, said reporters are "increasingly becoming the first stop

Advertisement
rather than the last resort" for prosecutors seeking information.

Another reason for opposition to a federal shield law is that it could interfere with national security. But that is an empty argument. The shield bill that was passed by the House of Representatives in the fall on a 398-21 vote has an exemption for national security. So does the version that cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee.

All three presidential candidates are on record favoring a national shield law as are many state attorneys general and a large bipartisan coalition in Congress.

Sen. Arlen Specter, ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a strong supporter of a federal shield law. He correctly pointed out that "a media shield law would not primarily be protection for journalists; it would be protection for the public and for our form of government."

Courts should compel journalists to disclose sources in cases involving acts of terrorism, real threats to our national security or if a journalist is witness to a crime.

Most judges do try to balance liberty and security considerations. But they need guidance from Congress on what standards to use in allowing journalists to protect confidential sources.

Unfortunately, President Bush and members of his administration continue to fight progress toward creation of a workable federal shield law, arguing that it is not needed. They are dead wrong.

The threats to journalists are real. Today, reporters are facing prison and fines for not revealing the sources of critical information about illegal and unethical actions of the administration.

Jim Risen of The New York Times and Toni Locy, formerly of USA Today, are fighting subpoenas regarding their sources. Locy is being ordered to pay up to $5,000 for each day she remains silent, with no contributions allowed from her employer, family or friends.

In fact, more journalists have faced fines and jail time recently than those indicted or convicted under the infamous Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

It takes only a few notable prosecutions of journalists for refusing to reveal sources to place a chill on the First Amendment. That must not be allowed.

The Senate should, like the House, pass a veto-proof version of a federal shield bill so that it can become law this year and journalists can perform their roles as watchdogs to keep the American people better informed about their government.