Letter published in

The Denver Post

8-02-08

BEWARE OF THE EFFECTS

OF A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW

     Your 7-26-08 editorial “Federal shield law necessary” wrongly promotes the idea that all newspapers deserve special protection when choosing which government secrets to keep or print. Too many indulge in biased politics to be trusted, e.g., The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

     As a longtime newsperson I say, beware of a Beltway shield law -- for whatever privilege Congress bestows, it can license, regulate, tweak, or use as a weapon. Requesting a federal shield law to protect a reportorial practice that the watchdogs themselves are no longer willing to defend on principle (by going to jail if necessary) does not speak well of a fearless free press, and it sends the wrong message to the public.
     The First Amendment specifically protects the press from government interference. The legal profession received no similar mention in the Constitution, yet lawyers are free to enjoy attorney-client secrecy as they go about their work — but not reporters?
     Colorado has a fairly good shield law, but unlike the First Amendment, it must include caveats, one of which is that a newsperson does not have to disclose a source “unless the information cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means.” New York Times reporter Judith Miller of Libby-trial fame arguably could not have been saved from jail under Colorado’s shield law either.

P.