Congress should get going on a shield law for reporters

Congress needs to get going on a shield law for reporters. Voters should want a shield law for reporters because they — the voters — need it.

A shield law protects reporters from having to tell the government things they haven't published. California's shield law is very broad and allows reporters to keep their sources, notes, unpublished photos and video files, and their personal observations while on duty secret except in limited circumstances.

There's no shield law among the U.S. codes. But reporters continue to act on the principle there should be.

So San Francisco freelance cameraman Josh White, who would normally have been covered by our state's shield law, went to jail Sept. 22, and he's still there. His offense?

Refusing to give up some video of angry demonstrators overturning a San Francisco police cruiser. A U.S. attorney waltzed around the state shield law by arguing that the cruiser was partly paid for by federal tax money.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail for several weeks for not revealing the source of her story naming CIA agent Valerie Plame. At the time, President Bush accused the New York Times of disloyalty for publishing the story. He's quiet about all that today. An aide to Vice President Cheney is on trial for planting the story.

The shield law (or lack of one) played a big role in the BALCO steroids case involving baseball slugger Barry Bonds. Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were headed to jail for refusing to say who told them about a federal grand jury hearing that was supposed to be secret.

At the last moment, prosecutors appear to have shaken down a private eye who pointed them at defense attorney Tony Ellerman. Now Ellerman's facing the wrath of federal justice.

A wishy-washy shield law bill was introduced in Congress late last spring and has been stalled since. Perhaps Congress, with its new Democratic majority, is procrastinating on writing a new shield law bill because the issue's not as important (or as simple?) as Bush's troop surge in Iraq or a fix for Social Security.

But members of Congress and voters should care about a shield law.

Because in every one of these recent cases and in thousands of others over the decades, reporters have depended on the shield laws in 49 states to let the public know things that are otherwise hidden.

Of course it's not simple, and balance is hard to achieve in complicated situations like these.

For instance: Should the public know that the man who criticized Bush for claiming Saddam Hussein was buying African uranium when he wasn't was sent on his mission by his wife, a CIA employee, or should Plame's former status as a secret agent have been protected a while longer?

Should we know which athletes think Bonds lied about taking steroids, or is the secrecy of the grand jury and Bonds' reputation more important?

Is White a "real" reporter who deserves shield law protection or is he just another citizen who witnessed a crime?

These are tough questions. They need to be examined and used to write a just law.

But the public should not lose sight of this general rule: When reporters can promise sources anonymity and refuge from retribution by those in authority, they can reveal things they couldn't if news gathering were just another piece of evidence subject to subpoena.

National security, criminal justice and the right to privacy are all important. So is your right to know.

Lodi News-Sentinel

First published: Saturday, February 17, 2007