JOURNALISTS MAY BE SELF-DESTRUCTING

Regarding the alleged need for Congress to enact a federal shield law to protect reporters and their sources, as a retired longtime newsperson I must say beware -- for whatever privilege the Washington politicians bestow, they can easily regulate, license, amend, use for ransom, or snatch it away. Requesting the government to protect a crucial reportorial practice that the watchdog itself indicates it is no longer willing to defend on principle by going to jail if necessary, does not speak well of a fearless free-press and sends the wrong message to the public.

It may well be declared nostalgic, but we in and of the press cannot let the basic idea of freedom of the press die. Freedom of religion, speech and the press are specifically cited in the First Amendment as being protected from government interference. There is nothing in there that says the judicial branch and its occasionally overzealous judges and prosecutors or the legislative or executive branches are free to override this profound protection. The legal profession has no similar exemption. Yet, as we all know, lawyers are free to routinely enjoy impenetrable attorney-client secrecy as they go about their work without requesting a shield law.

Colorado is generally regarded in the news business as having a good shield law and since it’s close to home, there is less danger of it being tweaked on a politically partisan basis. But unlike the simple and direct language of the First Amendment, Colorado’s shield law typically includes 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.

This is not to argue that freedom of the press is absolute. Rather it is a call for media-types to concentrate their time, energy and money toward defending the First Amendment, and doing everything else they can within their own organizations such as publicizing its value to the public and, most important, working to keep from abusing its privileges themselves.

The only answer for the newspersons who believe they must have a shield law would be, I suppose, to amend the U.S. Constitution and embed their own version. But, as the noted contemporary journalist John Seigenthaler is quoted, “The people are not on our side,” indicating that the press stands to come up short even if a Constitutional Convention were to occur, which in itself is not a likely event.

So here is where America’s journalists are, back to the only protection that counts: the First Amendment.

P.