If the press is to remain "free" in this country, then a Federal shield law has to be implemented, to ensure confidential sources providing information to journalists and a myriad of media outlets are protected.
If you recall, last year a female reporter was placed in contempt of court when she dug in her heels, and refused to dsclose contacts, who provided information on the sly and off-record.
Oftentimes, "deep throats" are capable of providing highly-sensitive facts which not only fuel news reports - but ultimately - may result in full-scale investigations by law enforcement agencies and/or the actually prosecution of guilty parties for wrong-doing.
Even still, a reporter who argues "protected source" to ensure that the identity of the "whistle-blower" remains confidential, may not be treated kindly by the court or escape a Judge's wrath.
It does cause a dilemma in the instance where sources (whispering the sordid details in a clandestine twilight meeting at a parking lot or down a back-alley) have been promised anonymity to prevent retaliation and/or an unjust fall-out.
For example, revealing the identity of the tattle-tale may result in a loss of livelihood or liberty (due to complicity in a crime).
Although there are a handful of shield laws in states around the Nation, they do not carry any weight in Federal Court in the final analysis.
If you recall, former President George W. Bush took advantage of the loopholes.
A chill swept through media outlets around the country last year, for instance, when George W. issued questionable subpoenas to try to extract information from individuals he and his adminstration perceived as opponents or outright enemies of the "state".
To some, Bush's "fishing expeditions" amounted to mere witch hunts.
The proposed "free flow" of Information Act under consideration in recent days, would grant qualified privileges to reporters who with-held the names of sources that provided information with the provisio that their identities be kept secret.
The bill has passed the "House" twice in the past two years, but never escaped the clutches of Senate watch-dogs motivated by self-serving ends.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee took up a compromise version of the legislation recently, which would allow reporters to protect the identities of their souces from Federal authorities, when certain criteria were met.
Under the bill, journalists would be compelled to divulge their sources if the information was essential to resolving criminal investigations or civil litigation; however, the Federal government or civil plaintiff wold have to convince a Judge that all other reasonable meaures had been taken before shaking down a jouralist.
If reporters are protecting sources who provided classified informaion, a Judge could order a journalist to identify asource (under the revised Act) if doing so would affect National secuirty in a manner that outweighed the benefits of publishing the informaion.
Although some argue that the special terms invite further abuse by Federal authorities, the new protections that would be created for reporters represent a significant improvement, according to legal (and media) analysts.
In view of the foregoing arguments, a number of journalists and media brass are hopeful that the judiciary committee will send the "free flow" of Informaion Act on to the full senate, where majorty leader Harry Reid of Nevada can ensure its passage.
If President Obama is seeking to establish a defining moment in his administation to date, this may be the circumstance in which to accomplish that, God willing!
No comments:
Post a Comment