If passed, a law will soon protect journalists from being subpoenaed by grand juries to identify their anonymous sources.
The bill, originally proposed in 2004, but brought back for this Congress by Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Bob Graham (D-Fla.), calls for a separate judge to determine if the Justice Department can subpoena a reporter’s testimony about sources, if the article cited may have compromised national security.
Although the Senate’s Judiciary Committee has repeatedly stalled the bill since its introduction, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington that he will place the bill on the floor of the Senate during the lame-duck session of Congress.
He will face strong opposition from many Republican senators, as well as the Justice Department and the White House, who are pushing hardest against the bill.
“[This] places a thumb on the scale in favor of the reporter's privilege and tips the balance against executive branch judgments about the nature and scope of damage or potential damage to our nation's security,” Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty said in a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Support for the proposed bill came from a surprising place, that of former Solicitor General Theodore Olson. “It extends to federal courts the nearly unanimous determination by the States that forcing journalists to disclose the identity of their confidential sources is often likely to do more damage than provide any concrete benefit to the public welfare,” he said in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Progress in the House has been slow as well, as they are waiting on movement in the Senate before fully examining the bill. The House version of the bill has bipartisan support, including its Republican sponsor, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.).
The proposed shield law has received high profile coverage in the aftermath of the 85-day jailing of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame and the threatened jailing of two San Francisco Chronicle reporters over the BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative) steroids scandal in Major League Baseball.
The BALCO story involves two reporters, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, who won national awards and praise from President Bush for their reporting on rampant steroid use in Major League Baseball. BALCO is a sports nutrition center in California, and the reports from the San Francisco Chronicle led the league to adopt new, more stringent, rules concerning the use of illicit and banned substances.
Journalism professors were unanimous in their approval of the proposed law, despite its political implications.
“It is a great thing, but it got caught up in the political mess because of Judy Miller at the New York Times,” said Carol Fletcher, an assistant professor of journalism.
“It is a positive thing,” Margaret Finucane, another assistant professor of journalism, said. “Stories will no longer fall through the cracks.”
At the University, the reaction of students to the proposed law has been mixed.
“Insomuch as it protects journalists, the shield law is definitely a positive, but now there's no risk factor for government officials to consider when leaking important information,” Nick Place, a sophomore print journalism major, said. “Leakers will be invulnerable and the government will become porous on every single level.”
Sophomore Kelly Glista doubted its passage.
“I think the proposed law is a great step for journalists but I have severe doubts that it will be passed any time soon,” she said. “It’s the kind of step that the government will postpone as long as possible.”
No comments:
Post a Comment