Things have changed a lot since I was in college at the tag end of the 1960s. Journalism was still a profession, not a priesthood, and Woodward and Bernstein hadn’t yet made their big splash that changed everything.
We believed then, and this is what we were taught, that using a confidential source could be problematic. If we wanted to build reputations as being those who took confidentiality seriously, then we’d better be prepared at some point, to go to jail to protect a source if that’s what it took.
Somehow, over time, journalists and others got the idea that they were above the law and/or were somehow protected in keeping their chosen confidential sources secret. Whether it was a case of law enforcement entities respecting “journalistic integrity,” or if there simply weren’t any cases big enough to make an issue of it, I don’t know, but the basic facts of the situation have not changed.
If you have information about a crime, and refuse to reveal it, then you’re obstructing justice. It’s up to the individual to decide which is more important – the integrity of the source, or your need to stay out of jail. Each case to be decided on its own merits.
Do journalists need some special privilege that sets them apart from everybody else, in order to do their jobs well?
I don’t think so. Furthermore, I think that enacting any kind of shield law opens a door to all kinds of exploitation and could obscure truth even more than it already has been. There’s no guarantee that all those who define their activities as journalism are going to have good principles or high moral standards.
Finally – and here’s the kicker – if you look at the definition of “covered persons” in the bill, it shows pretty clearly that it has not been thoroughly considered from all angles.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `covered person' means--
(A) an entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that--
(i) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(ii) operates a radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or
(iii) operates a news agency or wire service;
(B) a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such an entity; or
(C) an employee, contractor, or other person who gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for such an entity.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s340.html#hr581
A “covered person” could mean anybody. Literally anybody. Including criminals with blogs.
If you’ve been reading my stuff for any length of time, you might be aware that my standard position on any proposed law is: Just because you make a law about something, doesn’t make the problem go away.
In this case, I think it would create problems where none existed before. And I think the term “problems” is a vast understatement.
Hat tip to Amy Ridenour