Last updated: September 24, 2009 - 8:38am
[Commentary] After waiting nearly 40 years for Congress to protect journalists' right not to disclose confidential sources, news organizations -- and the public they serve -- can't complain too vociferously about a brief postponement last week of a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on a "shield law" approved by the House in March. Still, the Senate's sluggishness in requiring federal courts to respect a privilege recognized by two-thirds of the states is disappointing. So is the Obama administration's failure to provide support for allowing a judge to decide, in national security cases, whether the public interest in forcing a reporter to violate a vow of confidentiality outweighs the importance of the news-gathering at issue. This "balancing test" in the bill is crucial if prosecutors are to be prevented from exaggerating the harm that will result when a reporter honors such a pledge.
Links to Sources
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related
- WikiLeaks and a journalism 'shield law'
- Protection for whistle-blowers, journalists aids your right to know
- After Afghan War Leaks, Revisions in a Shield Bill
- A bill to protect journalists' sources gets better
- Media Shield Measure Stalls in Senate
- Senate Bill Aims to Define Who Is a Journalist
- Approve the shield law
- Bills to Maintain the Free Flow of Information to the Public
- A broad 'shield' for journalists
- A Shield Law for The World
- SPJ Holding Obama To His Pledge To Support Shield Law
- White House Toughens Its Stance on Journalist Shield Law
- White House Proposes Changes in Shield Law
- Media Groups Unite on Protecting Sources
- White House, Senate Strike Balance on Reporter Protections
Related Events
Ratings
Login to rate this headline.

