NYP: SHIELDING REPORTERS -- Should a special "right" of confidentiality exist for an effete elite?

New York Post ^ | July 21, 2005 | Editorial (full text)

[OESY]

The Bush administration is formally op posing the bipartisan effort on Capitol Hill to enact a federal shield law for journalists, calling it "bad public policy" that would create "serious impediments" to law enforcement.

We understand the administration's sensitivity, given the Valerie Plame affair. But that position is just plain wrong.

Like other news media organizations, we urged the Supreme Court to hear the appeals of subpoenaed journalists Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper in hopes the justices finally would clarify whether a federal right of confidentiality exists.

The court declined — which meant that its last word on the subject, a confusing 1972 ruling that has been interpreted differently by lower courts, stands.

That's why legislators on both sides of the aisle moved swiftly to correct the situation by pushing a federal shield bill.

To be sure, the legislation as first written was way off base: It maintained an absolute right of protection for sources — a level of confidentiality that doesn't even apply to clergy-penitent, attorney-client or doctor-patient privileges.

But changes have been made.

The absolute privilege is gone; the bill now parallels existing guidelines from the Justice Department. It would not apply to special prosecutors or in civil cases. And it would require prosecutors to show "reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed" and that other efforts to obtain the information have been exhausted.

But Deputy Attorney General James Comey says the bill "would bar the government from obtaining information about media sources, even in... circumstances affecting the public's health or safety or national security."

We disagree, albeit as an interested party.

A single national standard is necessary to clarify the situation created by 31 separate state laws.

Safeguards now in the bill seem sufficient to protect the interests of both government and media.

[OESY]

The Post is absolutely wrong. As the Plame affair clearly demonstrates, journalists have repeatedly abused their invention of the called "confidential source" privilege, often involving serious crimes or national security matters. The public has a right to know who their sources are.

Furthermore, this popular tactic of using anonymous sources has become a weapon for use against Republicans, and rarely against Democrats unless the Dem operatives have become so obnoxious their own party wants to purge them. Fair play demands that there not be a federal shield law. In fact, there arguably should not be state shield laws that afford journalists protections not given other citizens, such as bloggers. If journalists cannot find alternative sources for a story in a country of 300 million, it is due to their inherent laziness.

[BoBToMatoE]

I agree. See the other thread regarding this bill.

[Leatherneck_MT]

This would be laughable if it wasn't so ironic.

One self appointed Elite (Judges)

have been taking another self appointed Elite (Journalists) to task and now the Congress wants to give the latter Elite the ability to thumb it's nose at the Former Elite.

I wonder when WE THE PEOPLE will finally get tired of this and shove ALL of the Elites into the freakin Atlantic?

[rhombus]

We are all reporters. Since the internet has given every citizen "the means of production". The dinosaurs have still failed to grasp the internet's impact. If we are all reporters, do they sheild us all? I think not.

[Sgt_Schultze]

I wonder about libel if such an immunity is extended. Would such a shield law enable reporters to fabricate stories, claim an anonymous source and be immune from lawsuit?

[GVnana]

The public has a right to know who their sources are.

Agreed. Allowing the concealment of sources can create unlimited mischief. How can an individual defend against anonymous accusers?

I see this entire argument as an attack against individual rights and the creation of a "special class."

[sergeantdave]

I can't see giving special protection to communists at the New York Times who want to destroy America.

[Crush T Velour]

I think it is funny that the NYT who pressed for a special prosecutor because they thought it would hurt Bush, finds its reporter in jail for being unhelpful about getting to the bottom of all this.

I mean Plame WAS "outed" in the NYT, right?

I'm against a shield law because I want the Press to have something to think about before they gin up a phony scandal.

[massgopguy]

So a "journalist" could print the plans for the atomic bomb in TASS and protect the Rosenbergs? I don't think so.

[HKaddict]

Absolutely not. We don't need another special class in the US. We already have: The Kennedys, politicians, police, with extra privileges beyond what is afforded to normal citizens.

[Restorer]

In fact, there arguably should not be state shield laws that afford journalists protections not given other citizens, such as bloggers.

IMHO, bloggers ARE journalists. The courts might not agree with me, but I fail to see why someone who publishes using bytes rather than dead trees should be treated differently.

[dead]

The NY Post also believes that journalists should get to go to the front of the line for rides at theme parks and they should get 10% discounts on prescriptions.

[Valin]

Should a special "right" of confidentiality exist for an effete elite?

NO. Next question.

[meema]

The Post is wrong. This would allow ever more of these elite's stories to be made-up evermore.
These "journalists" are NOT above the law!

[Tacis]

A shield law would have allowed the NYT or WP to make up and print some outrageous story about Karl Rove without any fear of having to back it up with anything but "a confidential source told us." Of course, with their extreme left wing bias, they could attack any conservative figure the neocommunists ordered them to without concern. A shield law only protects media corruption and treats a source as a property right.

[Dilbert56]

One could argue that confidential sources provide inaccurate information more often than not. Of course we'll never know, will we?

Congress should fix the real problem. If these anonymous sources are whistleblowers who fear for their jobs, Congress should legislate adequate protection for whistleblowers. IMHO these leakers often blow more than whistles.

[xzins]

In a clearly defined role as a collector of information for a newspaper, then I do want reporters to have a confidential relationship with their sources. I want this for constitutional reasons. The 1st amendment says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the freedom of the press..."

I don't think it's possible for Congress to pass a law that restricts the investigation a reporter can do and then say that they have not abridged the freedom of that reporter to pursue that story.

That same amendment says that Congress can't make a law establishing a state religion or messing with anyone's free exercise of religion.

I believe that priests/pastors should have a confidential relationship with parishoners/penitents.

I want "no law" to mean the same in both cases. Will it be abused? Probably. But the alternative is worse.

jmho

[King Prout]

the media claim that the people have a "right to know" about the machinations of corporations and governments - including who did what, where, when, on whose orders, etc...

I say fine, good, dandy: sauce for the goose.

We must therefore also have the exact same right to know about the machinations of the media - including who SAID what, where, when, on whose orders, etc...

NO SPECIAL SHIELD.

[FReethesheeples]

Was Plame (as David Horowitz has essentially said and Michael Kelly has guessed) and/or Wilson (as Cliff May and others, like me,* have hypothesized) the "source"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

* See for instance my FR Post:

"Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?"