A Fine Point

Authors

The editors who craft the Post-Gazette’s daily stands on the issues affecting the region, the state and the nation hold an on-line conversation with readers about key topics in the news. The PG editorial writers are: Tom Waseleski, Reg Henry, Susan Mannella, Tony Norman and Dan Simpson.  

 Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Hoist the shield: Democracy wins in a deal to protect news sources

Prepare to strike one item from the list of disappointments that President Obama has dealt those who expected better from a progressive administration -- a federal shield law for reporters.

A few weeks ago, the administration signaled to lawmakers that it had problems with a media shield law -- S. 448, the Free Flow of Information Act -- that would protect reporters from having to go to jail to protect their sources.

This was a setback for anyone who believes uninhibited news gathering is essential to the workings of democracy. Indeed, it is a strange sort of freedom of the press that treats reporters like criminals because they won't betray sources who are often indispensable to the task of learning the hidden truth of stories. Fortunately, the administration had a change of heart.

Thanks to an agreement worked out between the administration, leading Democrats, including Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter (a chief sponsor of the legislation) and various media organizations, most of the objectionable suggested revisions have been eliminated. The result is a compromise that balances the concerns of the government with the needs of the news business.

The public has nothing to fear that the workings of justice -- or national security -- would be harmed by the shield law. A reporter couldn't invoke the law, for example, when terrorism threatens mayhem. In criminal cases, compelled disclosure of information would be allowed only when all reasonable alternatives had been exhausted and the testimony or document sought was ruled essential.

As the president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Marty Kaiser, said: "While not perfect, this is a huge stride forward from the administration's prior position and provides statutory protection that far exceeds that which is currently available to a reporter."

Congress should pass it.

  


Posted Nov 03 2009, 05:00 AM by Susan Mannella

Comments

myreply wrote re: Hoist the shield: Democracy wins in a deal to protect news sources
on Tue, Nov 3 2009 8:58 AM

I believe that reporters "should" have to go to jail if they don't reveal their sources.  It is too easy to make a statement that may do incredible harm to someone else, and then say "I must protect my sources".

We have the right to face our accusers - and this "shield" protects only the reporter and their irresponsible reporting.

It is much like the blogs - names are protected by "sign" names.  You can say anything you want about anyone you want.

The press is just like that.  I, for one, would like to see restraints on all of the media, and that means giving up their sources in areas of trial or when otherwise necessary.

People and entities must not be destroyed by cowardice.

my opinion wrote re: Hoist the shield: Democracy wins in a deal to protect news sources
on Wed, Nov 4 2009 9:14 PM

"This was a setback for anyone who believes uninhibited news gathering is essential to the workings of democracy"

Can't argue with that statement, problem is we give this power to people with no integraty.  What the press is doing in the name of the first ammendment makes me sick. I would be more inclined to support them if they used it to do their job.

"it is a strange sort of freedom of the press that treats reporters like criminals because they won't betray sources who are often indispensable" or have an agenda or want to hurt a foe or affect an election or etc etc.  There are numerous instances of this sort of thing happening.  How do I defend myself against charges brought by an annonimous source?  How does the reporter know the source does not have an agenda?

Should I have to reveal a source that gives me information concerning a financial deal?  What test or certification does a reporter pass to get this special power, none.  You just have to show up and you are a "professional" reporter.

I would be happy to grant that federal shield law if I could get assurances that it would be used properly and not abused.

chilco99 wrote re: Hoist the shield: Democracy wins in a deal to protect news sources
on Thu, Nov 5 2009 1:05 PM

I say jail the liberal media and impose the stiffest penalty for those suspected and convicted of sedition and treason against the Republic. You know who you are!