Shielding journalists in the Internet era

[Commentary] Despite some initial hedging, the Obama administration has embraced the idea of shield legislation, while insisting on concessions -- some of them excessive -- to law enforcement. The result in both the Senate and House bills is a qualified privilege that would allow journalists to protect sources and documents unless identifying them was necessary to save lives, protect children from abuse or prevent a criminal prosecution from collapsing. Even then, in most cases a judge would be obliged to weigh the public interest in gathering or disseminating news against the public interest in compelling disclosure. There is one area in which both bills need to be strengthened in an eventual conference committee. The bill considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee limited protection to "a person who is engaged in journalism." As amended by the panel, the definition of a "covered person" is someone who writes or reports for the print media and cable or broadcast news services. There is a reference to the "electronic" delivery of news, but online journalists understandably complain that they aren't explicitly protected. They have a similar grievance with the House bill, which defines a covered person as someone for whom journalism represents "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood" or produces "substantial financial gain." Obviously not everyone who commits thoughts to cyberspace is a journalist in the sense intended by Auden. A shield law shouldn't protect libelous gossip on a teenager's MySpace page. But in the Internet era, not every public-spirited journalist works for a traditional newspaper or broadcast operation, and some don't work at all in the sense of receiving a regular paycheck. The final version of this overdue law should reflect that reality. (12/31)