OP/ED: TOO BROAD A SHIELD - Journalists need some protection for their sources. But a proposed law would shelter criminals as well.
By Rosa Brooks
The bill Congress is considering � the ludicrously titled "Free Flow of Information Act" � is a spectacularly foolish piece of legislation. It will shield criminals as often as journalists and prevent the public from getting the information necessary to prosecute crimes.

In its current form, the proposed legislation would absolutely prohibit federal courts from compelling journalists to disclose the identity of someone they "believe to be a confidential source." The only exception � in the House version of the bill � would be in circumstances where disclosing the identity of a source "is necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security."

OK. So a Jeffrey Dahmer copycat tells Judy Miller that he ate half a dozen people for breakfast and intends to eat six more at lunch. Investigating law enforcement officers ask Miller to reveal the source for her upcoming feature on "Great Recipes With Human Ingredients." Miller declines. Under the proposed legislation, investigators and prosecutors are out of luck. The Dahmer copycat munches his way through more victims while Miller enjoys a series of Pulitzer Prize-winning scoops.


Read the article.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the media gets to investigate crime and then refuse to divulge its sources of information to law enforcement? How in the world does that serve anyone's interests except the media's? Imagine a reporter printing a story that he or she has spoken to a "confidential source" who says that he witnessed the crime and that the perpetrator is someone other than the guy on death row and the reporter refuses to comply with a grand jury subpoena for that information? As Wallace Shawn says in "The Princess Bride," inconveivable! The shield law is a bad idea. And, being against this law is not the same, as the media would have us all believe, as being against a free press.

You can't put it any better than Barry Macha did during one of the committee hearings last session (paraphrasing):

"Do we want to read about crimes, or do we want to do something about them?"

October 26, 2005
The Press's Superman Complex
Unholy-priesthood privileges begone!

Jonah Goldberg
NRO Editor-at-Large
National Review Online

As someone who makes a lavish living in the First Amendment industry ("Jeeves! More imitation Cheez-Wiz on this cracker!"), I might be expected to subscribe to the fashionable, enlightened, extend-your-pinky-to-drink-tea position on free-speech issues. What position is that? That members of the Fourth Estate constitute a priestly class with special powers and privileges not held by the Great Unwashed.

The thinking goes that, in order to do their jobs well, journalists need special exemption from testifying before courts and grand juries - an obligation that holds for everybody else. The truth is, I don't think such an arrangement would be good for journalism, because it would turn the profession into a guild. I don't have much use for guilds.

* * *

Read the article