Can Reporters Protect You?

A new shield law that would allow bloggers like me to better protect their sources, is stalled in the Congress at the moment, but President Obama says he’ll sign it if it gets to his desk. I asked a fellow journalism student at the University of Maryland, (where I am wrapping up my Master’s degree) to do a little digging on the status of the bill.  Here’s her report:

Will They Give You Up?
New federal shield law gives reporters protection, up to a point.

By Katie Gallagher
Special to Line of Departure

“Don’t worry, I’ll keep you anonymous,” the reporter assures you.   But can reporters really keep that promise?  Under the new federal shield law, nearing possible final passage in Congress, reporters can’t be forced to reveal their sources of information during the reporting except in extraordinary cases.

The Obama administration has endorsed the latest compromise version of the proposed federal shield law, but it still awaiting final approval from Congress. (Read Attorney General Eric Holder and DNI chief Dennis Blair’s letter of Endorsement)

The Senate version, backed by Senators Arlen Specter (R-​​PA) and Charles Schumer (D-​​NY) is currently tied up in the Judiciary Committee

The proposed law would prevent journalists from being fined or imprisoned for refusing to identify anonymous sources. It was also prevent courts from subpoenaing journalists to appear in trial and identify sources. And for the first time, the law would cover journalists and bloggers alike.

Several important amendments were made to the bill (S. 448 )after it appeared to be stalled in September, including redefining who qualifies for protection as a “journalist.”  The amendment removes the requirement that the journalist be “a salaried employee or independent contractor for a media organization.”

“This should permit freelance authors to be covered, and it also provides the potential for journalists publishing on blogs to be covered as well,” says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing for a final vote n committee.

Currently, virtually all states (with the exception of Wyoming) provide some protection for journalists who want to protect their sources, either with a “shield law” or other recognition of reporter-​​source privilege, but that protection applies only to state and local cases.  The new law would extend similar protection to journalists and bloggers at a national level.

In civil cases, the proposed legislation would require that the defendant go through all other means of obtaining the information before being able to subpoena a reporter.

After the litigant’s various attempts, the judge would still apply a balancing test, with the responsibility falling on the defendant to prove that the reporter’s testimony is more important than the public’s interest in newsgathering.

In ordinary criminal cases, the responsibility would be on the reporter to prove that the information should remain between the reporter and his or her source.

The only cases in which the balancing test would not apply are when a prosecutor demonstrates that the identification of the anonymous source could help prevent a future terrorist attack or, are “likely to cause significant and articulable harm to national security,” according to the agreement.

In that case a reporter who refused to give up his source, could face a lengthy stint in jail.

“A federal shield law won’t end journalists’ abuse of anonymous sources, and it won’t end prosecutorial witch hunts. It will, however, help the public have access to important information, and that, in the end, is what really matters,”  Christine Tatum, President of the Society of Professional Journalists, wrote in a statement. “Regardless of whether you think journalists use too many anonymous sources, it’s hard to argue that they don’t need to promise confidentiality sometimes.”

Many citizens are happy to see that such a law is being considered in Congress.

Kathy Gulley, 53, said that the protection for sources is necessary in certain cases.

“It depends on who they’re looking for or who or what they’re after,” the medical assistant for a Rockville OBYN office said.  “I think the government asks for a little too much sometimes.”

Gulley is less optimistic that Congress will pass the proposed agreement, but others believe that while the agreement is tentative and maybe not quite perfected, it is essential.

“The problem is that it’s a slippery slope and you have individuals in charge of determining what is necessary and what’s not,” said Paul Lodato, 84 and a former employee of the state department.

“Because we’re in a post 9/​11 situation, it seems like a lot of the freedoms that we once had, have been revoked and freedom of the press is one of the most precious ones and if that gets intruded upon that is a danger to everyone.”

Katie Gallagher is a junior at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism

What do YOU think?

Tags: Leakers, S. 448, Schumer, Shield, Sources