Editorials

It’s nearly unanimous: in early April, all three presidential candidates still in the race — Sens. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — endorsed Senate Bill 2035, a federal “shield law” affirming the right of journalists to protect their confidential sources.

And two-thirds of the states’ attorneys general have now publicly voiced their support for the shield law like the ones nearly all states have — including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

“By affording some degree of protection against the compelled disclosure of a reporter’s confidential sources, these state laws advance a public policy favoring the free flow of information to the public,” the attorneys general wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

And although federal legislation won overwhelming passage in the House of Representatives in October — 398-21 — it has become bogged down in the Senate, where it faces opposition from some Republicans. And the White House has threatened a veto of the bill, saying it could encourage leaks of classified information.

But the law is necessary and appropriate, just as the need to cite anonymous sources is sometimes necessary and appropriate.

Without the help of those sources, and the promise to keep their identities confidential, important recent stories might never have come to light: conditions at the Walter Reed Medical Center, the Enron scandal, and steroid abuse in Major League Baseball.

In 2005, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days when she refused to identify which Bush Administration officials had talked leaked to her the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Even more recently, former USA Today reporter Toni Locy was ordered to personally pay contempt fines of up to $5,000 per day for refusing to reveal her sources in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Dr. Steven Hatfill, once named as a “person of interest” in that case, has filed a civil suit in the matter, and has sought information on Ms. Locy’s sources. The judge in the case, in an unprecedented move, prohibited anyone (including the newspaper and her family) from helping her to pay the fines.

“The Locy case reflects a growing trend of reporters being subpoenaed or threatened for their confidential sources by civil litigants and federal prosecutors,” says David Ledford, president of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association. “And it is this trend that threatens investigative journalism and underlines the need for a federal shield law.”

The bill is not a “get out of jail free” card for irresponsible reporters. It has exceptions for national security, personal safety and law enforcement reasons.

“Over the last year, sponsors of the Free Flow of Information Act have made changes to the committee-passed bill in a good faith effort to address Bush Administration concerns,” according to Ledford. “For example, we understand the revised bill will narrow the definition of a journalist to ensure the privilege only applies to legitimate news-gatherers.”

The Senate must realize the vital contribution made by confidential sources, and quickly vote on this important legislation.

()