Reporter shield law: Yes or no?

**Xiahou** · 10-24-2007, 01:22

What do you think of the proposed reporter shield laws?

For those that need some background on it, you can read
this

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** · 10-24-2007, 01:29

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** · 10-24-2007, 01:52

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** · 10-24-2007, 02:30

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

**Lemur** · 10-24-2007, 03:01

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 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** · 10-24-2007, 03:42

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

**Lemur** · 10-24-2007, 04:17

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. 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, "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** · 10-24-2007, 04:18

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** · 10-24-2007, 04:22

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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, 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?

**Beirut** · 10-25-2007, 11:24

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 10-25-2007, 12:36

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.