Email This Story

Editorial: Changes to original shield law caustic to journalistic integrity

Oct. 13, 2009

Current legislation in Congress to protect the rights of journalists is being threatened. A shield law is designed to provide reporters with the right to refuse to testify on information obtained during their personal investigating process.

Shield laws are currently in place in 37 states, with Texas the most recent to enact the law. The various state laws have different degrees of protection and define a journalist in varying terms. One common thread in each of the state laws is that without shield laws in areas of controversy, freedom of the press would be infringed upon and journalism as a whole, stifled.

President Barack Obama has altered his stance on enacting the Free Flow of Information Act and is now a proponent of changes to the bill that would make a federal shield law nearly useless to journalists. The original bill contains language that would require concerns about national security matters to be taken before an impartial judge. The judge would then decide if the need to protect information trumps the public's right to know.

According to Society of Professional Journalists President Kevin Smith, the Justice Department sees the current shield laws as a hurdle because it wants to have the only say in what constitutes a national security concern. "Obama instructed his legal team to propose different language that ultimately renders (the bill) useless," Smith said in an editorial last Tuesday.

"On the campaign trail, then-candidate Barack Obama pledged to support the idea of more protection for journalists and their sources. He held onto that belief until last week, when, after a meeting of high-level national security officials, he did an about-face," Smith said. Thus, the administration's loyal senators are in the process of distorting the original language of the act.

The original Free Flow of Information Act would have prevented incidents similar to the Valerie Plame case, in which New York Times journalist Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days. Miller refused to leak her sources to the government but was eventually forced to disclose the sources. Had the Free Flow of Information act been in place, Miller would have had to leak her sources only if an impartial judge ruled that information necessary for national security.

The American people deserve to be informed from unbiased journalists. Journalists have staked their livelihoods - and often their lives - on the task of disseminating information to the masses for the greater good. It is the responsibility of America's journalists to prove the necessity of the originally-intended Free Flow of Information Act.

Not enacting a federal shield law that protects journalists would jeopardize the integrity of journalists' careers by incorporating sinister politics with fair and ethical reporting.

Americans would no longer have a "free" press, but a corrupted one and citizens' First Amendment right to an unfettered press could be threatened. In the absence of a shield law, reporters could become the center of a government probe or nationwide lawsuit with every story involving information that the government deems a national security concern.

Much to the dismay of The Lariat, the proposed changes to the shield law may cause journalists to face criminal charges. According to Smith, proposed changes "would clear the way for federal prosecutors to threaten reporters with jail time or fines for the sake of 'national security.'"

In the realm of print journalism and investigative reporting, one character trait is pivotal: integrity. By passing legislation that would hinder a reporter's integrity and dilute the purity of journalistic ethics, Congress would be doing a disservice to not only journalists, but also the American people.

Congress should pass the Free Flow of Information Act as originally envisioned, to protect American journalists and preserve freedoms.

More News ...