Published February 14, 2006 11:08 pm - A free press is essential to a functioning democracy. How a free press is used, however, is subject to endless debate. For example, the press will say that it needs to protect sources so they won’t suffer reprisals from the information they reveal. Others say such blanket protection can shield lawbreakers.
Indiana has a shield law that describes a journalist and goes on to say that person shall not be compelled to disclose in legal proceedings or elsewhere the source of information obtained.
Needed: federal shield law
A free press is essential to a functioning democracy. How a free press is used, however, is subject to endless debate. For example, the press will say that it needs to protect sources so they won’t suffer reprisals from the information they reveal. Others say such blanket protection can shield lawbreakers.
Indiana has a shield law that describes a journalist and goes on to say that person shall not be compelled to disclose in legal proceedings or elsewhere the source of information obtained.
With this kind of protection, sources are free to become whistleblowers and the press can get out information on public officials that wouldn’t see the light of day without such a law.
Congress is reluctant to pass such a law on the federal level. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence put forth a federal shield law in the House although the Bush administration opposed it. The executive branch cited national security reasons for taking such a stance.
The absence of this law allowed federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to vigorously pursue journalists such as the New York Times’ Judith Miller who spent 85 days in jail for not cooperating in front of a grand jury about what she knew in the Valerie Plame leak case.
On Monday, Fitzgerald brought Miller, no longer a Times reporter, back and tried to get more information about the Plame case including the newspaper’s phone records.
Without a shield law, the federal government is free to pursue journalists, and no government has been more bold in this approach than the current administration. The U.S. citizens become the losers because information is withheld and made secret. Secrecy is anathema to a government for the people and by the people.
Before Pence introduced his bill, Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar had co-authored a similar bill. We applaud them for making a move that is long overdue.
National security is the blanket statement used by administration after administration to keep information secret that needs to be put in front of the public. This holds public officials accountable.
In April, the 2006 Freedom of Information Summit will be held in Indianapolis and will concentrate on teaching everyone — journalists as well as ordinary residents — community access laws. Pence will be a guest speaker. This is an important topic for all Americans. The freedom to collect and receive unvarnished information will always be challenged by those not wanting to be exposed. For a democracy, however, such disclosure is necessary for people to know what their leaders are doing.