THE ISSUE: Federal shield law

OUR OPINION: Law necessary to ensure press can be watchdog

The U.S. Congress is again to consider the Free Flow of Information Act, which has bogged down in the Senate in previous attempts to establish a shield law to protect journalists’ ability to gather information.

Journalists encounter difficulty in reporting stories as judges order them to disclose the identity of sources who provide valuable information in exchange for confidentiality. Judges are holding journalists in contempt of court for refusing to name anonymous sources.

Reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes and their work over the last few years in criminal and civil cases in federal court. Groundbreaking stories, such as conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and baseball steroid abuse, would not have been possible without confidential sources. The journalist is becoming the first stop, rather than the last resort, for civil litigants and prosecutors attempting to obtain the identity of confidential sources.

While press and public are one and the same in the right of access to their government, judges and lawmakers historically have recognized the need for certain reporting privileges if journalists are to fulfill their mission. One is limited immunity from being summoned to court to testify about sources and provide information available by other means.

In South Carolina, the General Assembly more than a decade ago passed a shield law. It grants news organizations limited protection against orders to testify and turn over information in cases about which they have reported. In total, 33 states have media shield statutes and 16 others have judicial precedents protecting reporters.

The same is not true on the federal level. The Supreme Court in 1972 ruled that journalist-source relationships were not protected under the Constitution, and currently reporters have no privileges to refuse to appear and testify in federal legal proceedings.

As researchers and investigators in their own right, reporters gather information pertaining to many incidents that end up in the court system. To routinely compel reporters to come forward with that information excuses the legal community from doing its homework and endangers the media’s ability to gather information.

If you speak to a reporter and he or she promises that something you say will not be published, the promise is to be upheld. If it’s not, among the least of your actions is a vow never to speak with the reporter again.

Importantly, the legislation being considered on the federal level does provide that reporters can be compelled to disclose information on sources if that information is needed to prevent acts of terrorism or harm to the national security.

South Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a supporter of the Free Flow of Information Act. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is to consider the legislation shortly, he is being urged by the S.C. Press Association to take the lead from the Republican side of the aisle.

SCPA Executive Editor Bill Rogers wrote in a letter to Graham: “We know and appreciate that you have been a longtime sponsor of the Free Flow of Information Act, and we wanted to encourage you to take a lead role in advocating for its passage when the Judiciary Committee marks up the bill ... The recent arrests of reporters in Iran show that now more than ever, the U.S. needs to lead by example and pass legislation that supports a free press, which is the foundation of democracy.”

The primary check on government power is a free and independent press. The Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters as much as it is about protecting the public’s right to know.

We urge Sen. Graham to continue active support of the legislation and do all in his power to ensure its passage this year.

You must be logged in to comment.