Reporter shield law: Yes or no?

[Xiahou]

What do you think of the proposed reporter shield laws?

For those that need some background on it, you can read
this (http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-2/119294879063260.xml&coll=6)

Personally, I'm completely opposed. Being a reporter doesn't make you a member of a privileged class that enjoys special rights. If they feel the need to protect a confidential source, do so, but don't expect special immunity for it.

[Boyar Son]

until the press get tortured if this state becomes like china....

everyone can break. so I wouldnt depend on the reporter to keep a secret...

[Papewaio]

Democracies require an informed citizenship. The media are one of the primary conduits of this information. As such as they have this responsibility they should have some special rights.

Media is also one of the checks and balances in a society that should not be controlled by the government.

[Ice]

Yes, although a non verified source has usually crap credibility. Sure though. They shouldn't have to reveal who gave them the information.

[Lemur]

I think it would be almost impossible to report on government corruption without some sort of protection. Who's going to slip you information about how ED-209 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ED-209) doesn't work properly if all they have to do is call you before a grand jury to make you choose between jail and naming names? Who would ever risk themselves by talking to reporter about corruption or criminal behavior again?

I have a relative who did reporting on the cocaine cartels in the 1980s. He got deep inside, and talked to some of the top people involved in moving cocaine into the U.S. Several drug enforcement divisions wrote to him later, thanking him for giving them such a detailed and useful peek into what they were up against.

If he had not been protected as a journalist, would these scumbags have spoken with him? Would they have shown him how their organizations worked if they knew that any prosecutor anywhere could subpoena their names and phone numbers from him, even if charges were never filed?

Xiahou, you need to balance your disdain for a "privileged class" with an understanding of how we, the people, get information that various people in power want to keep to themselves. We are still a democratic republic, and someone has to do the dirty work of reporting. Or would you rather that the job of public information be given to the government?

[Xiahou]

If he had not been protected as a journalist, would these scumbags have spoken with him? Would they have shown him how their organizations worked if they knew that any prosecutor anywhere could subpoena their names and phone numbers from him, even if charges were never filed?You're proving my point. There was no shield law in the 80's- yet he still got and maintained confidential sources. There was no shield law during Watergate either, yet people inexplicably point to it as evidence for the need of one. :dizzy2:


Xiahou, you need to balance your disdain for a "privileged class" with an understanding of how we, the people, get information that various people in power want to keep to themselves. We are still a democratic republic, and someone has to do the dirty work of reporting. Or would you rather that the job of public information be given to the government?
I love how everyone trots out the democracy line. Democracy should also require that everyone is equal before the law- not that certain people gain extra privileges based on their chosen career path. Further, what makes a reporter? If you dig up some dirt and post it on a web-site, do you magically become a "journalist" and receive the accompanying privileges?

Edit: We're not talking about whistleblower protection, this is about allowing reporters to say whatever they want about anything, cite confidential sources and never, ever get called on it. That's wrong. :no:

[Lemur]

Sigh. Let's go over this in detail.

The first legal wrangle over a reporter protecting his source went to the Supreme Court in 1972, with Branzburg v Hayes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes). The Supreme ruled against the journo, but noted that the government must "convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest."

This was followed by Zerilli v. Smith, in which the D.C. Appeals Court found that journo privilege did exist, and, to quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes), "its application depended on two factors: (1) that the information sought was crucial to a litigant's case and (2) that the information could not be acquired from any other source."

The fact that there is no protection for journalists prompted thirty-two states to enact their own shield laws. Four states have partial protection, and sixteen have none. States' rights in action, eh?

As a matter of fact, in the 1980s, when my relative was doing the cocaine article, he was protected, as the state in which he was working did, actually, have a shield law, and still does.

So the debate is not whether or not there should be shield laws; at the moment there are thirty-six. The debate is whether there should be a standard law promulgated at the Federal level.

Does that help clarify?

[Papewaio]

I think a comparison of worst case scenarios is needed.

A reporter uses a fictional source to slander or misinform the public.

vs

A government department/special interest group/large corporation seeks to protect itself and harasses the journalist into submission.

[Lemur]

Edit: We're not talking about whistleblower protection, this is about allowing reporters to say whatever they want about anything, cite confidential sources and never, ever get called on it. That's wrong. :no:
And how would you suggest disentangling the two scenarios? Libel is prosecutable, is it not?

And please note that the current administration has made zero use of whistleblower protection. Examine the fate of people who report on corruption in Iraq contracts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/), and you'll see what I mean. So who is supposed to expose billions of dollars of waste and fraud if not the much-hated press?

[AntiochusIII]

A reporter uses a fictional source to slander or misinform the public.

vs

A government department/special interest group/large corporation seeks to protect itself and harasses the journalist into submission.I'd take yellow journalism over the oppression from people with the monopoly on the use of force any day.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Most examples of confidential sources aren't grand and noble exposes of government corruption, but leaking of national security info to get back at a rival or program you don't like.

It's not like a lack of such a law has stopped whistle blowers before.

And besides - why should one class of people have special protections under the law?

CR

[HoreTore]

"National Security" is simply a lame excuse to cover up things government officials mess up.

As a citizen and voter, I shouldn't be told that I can't know this or that because of national security. If I am to make a good choice on which guy I want running the country, which I thought was the point of democracy, then I need to know those things that are classified as "national security info".

[Xiahou]

And how would you suggest disentangling the two scenarios? Libel is prosecutable, is it not?It'd be awfully hard to prosecute if the journalist's sources for the alleged libel couldn't be called upon.


And besides - why should one class of people have special protections under the law?That's what really sticks in my craw. They already think they're elites- this enshrines it in law. Some point to doctor-patient or attorney-client privilege, but this comparison fails because doctors and lawyers are both professions that are heavily regulated- journalists are not (nor should they be). And again, legally, what constitute a journalist? Who decides who is and who is not?

For additional perspective, here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302000.html) is an WaPo column written by Patrick Fitzgerald on this issue.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Some good arguments from Xiahuo and Lemur. :bow:

Instinctively, I am with Xiahou - that we should be equal under the law and the definition of journalist could be too broad and end up protecting people who certainly don't deserve it. Lemur is right to say that a free press is essential to a correctly functioning democracy. However most journalism is about far less than the conduct of government. As well as protecting journalists and their sources from the powerful and corrupt, surely a hack could use this to promote a criminal characters and his activities without exposing either of them to legal proceedings.

If the problem is an inbalance of power between the press and the state, maybe weakening secrecy and national security legislation is the answer. Alternatively, perhaps the members of the Grand Jury could be given the power to grant privilege as the circumstances seem appropriate to them. In that way "we the people" would be the ones making the decisions.

I suppose I could be reassured about such laws if I knew the details of how they work in the states that have enacted them. Do they protect journalists from government and are they abused by the unscrupulous to protect activities that ought to be exposed to legal censure?

[Xiahou]

If the problem is an inbalance of power between the press and the state, maybe weakening secrecy and national security legislation is the answer. I think you may be on to something there. Instead of legally enshrining elitism, make government more open to everyone. What ever happened to the FOIA reform in the US?

[PanzerJaeger]

Unnecessary.

Also, what makes a journalist? Can I start a blog tonight and get my own shield? :knight:

[CountArach]

I presume that it would only apply to investigative journalists.

[Papewaio]

I think you may be on to something there. Instead of legally enshrining elitism, make government more open to everyone. What ever happened to the FOIA reform in the US?

I agree, accountability and transparency make for a good organisation be it corporate, government or family.

[Don Corleone]

I understand the point Lemur and others are trying to make, but I have to side with Xiahou here. Do we really want to give the Jayson Blair's of the world carte blanche?

[Prodigal]

It would be a good thing, of course it would need to be dependent upon press being relied on not to make up any old sensationalist balls they feel like & report it as fact....From a confidential source

[Don Corleone]

It would be a good thing, of course it would need to be dependent upon press being relied on not to make up any old sensationalist balls they feel like & report it as fact....From a confidential source

How about some middle ground? Maybe law enforcement agencies cannot compel a reporter to reveal his sources, but an independent review panel of senior editors, to verify the veracity of the story, could?

Seriously folks, journalists already lie all the time. Now you want to give them a built in CYA that is limitless?

[Geoffrey S]

Legslative, executive and judicial powers are constrained by laws. I see no reason why the same shouldn't be the case for a power that wasn't really present at the time when the idea of seperation of powers was conceived, namely mass media. While in principle it must be possible to protect sources, there should also be clearly defined means of forcing journalists to reveal their sources; I find myself liking Don's idea of review panels.

[Productivity]

See I find the whole journalists lying point really quite interesting. Regardless of legal ramifications, shields etc. what ever happened to the true arbiter, the consumer refusing to buy a publication that obviously plays loose with the truth? Is it a worrying point that consumers, while they should not be lied to need something other than the power of their own purchase to increase journalistic levels? Do we *want* to be buying pieces of journalism that are effectively full of lies? If no, why can't we force the issue through purchasing power?:help:

[Prodigal]

See I find the whole journalists lying point really quite interesting. Regardless of legal ramifications, shields etc. what ever happened to the true arbiter, the consumer refusing to buy a publication that obviously plays loose with the truth? Is it a worrying point that consumers, while they should not be lied to need something other than the power of their own purchase to increase journalistic levels? Do we *want* to be buying pieces of journalism that are effectively full of lies? If no, why can't we force the issue through purchasing power?:help:

The problem is that people buy papers and watch new channels that reinforce their own world view/opions, so that the reporters that fabricate storylines are in effect playing up to a crowd that are going to be more inclined to believe them without questioning the veracity their statements.

As far as implementing the actual law, rekon it should be restricted on who it could be applicable to, for example, exposing links between the russian mafia & sales of nuclear war heads to ex delta force mercenaries, (obviously a bit extreme), but by revealing the source its pretty apparent it'll result in something really nasty happening to them.

So put the onus on the journo to prove that by revealing his source that their life would be directly threatened.

[Beirut]

Democracies require an informed citizenship. The media are one of the primary conduits of this information. As such as they have this responsibility they should have some special rights.

Media is also one of the checks and balances in a society that should not be controlled by the government.

Exactly. The balance of power in a democracy is maintained by a free press, and in a world where most governments have gone bonkers with terrorism-this and national security-that as excuses to subvert fundamental freedoms, it is only a free press that can keep the government in check.

To maintain a free press in the face of government abuse of powers, reporters need powers of their own. A shield law is a mightily small price to pay to guarantee not only freedom of speech, but all other freedoms that follow. Freedom of speech means freedom to dissent. Without dissent there is no democracy, no justice, and no freedom at all.

[Whacker]

A bit torn on this, but I answered "yes".

Mostly I am in agreement that journalists need no special protection. Also, they need to be held accountable just like others for spreading lies and hubris, and anyone who's not been living under a rock knows how bad journalism is these days.

However...

In this day and age in the US, with all of the fear mongering, illegal secret prisons, flaunting of the constitution and law, and secrecy in general, we desperately need this. With the current government's tendencies to act more and more like a facist regime, we must (unfortunately) have a way for checks and balances through mass media, as someone pointed out is largely (again unfortunately) the main means for communicating with the public. This in essense becomes a band-aid form of a check and balance.

My $0.02 USD.