Time for a shield law

Barely one year after W. Mark Felt, a k a Watergate's famous "Deep Throat," decided to go public, the Senate Judiciary Committee is ready to consider a modest federal shield law for reporters. The timing most likely is coincidental, but the connection ought to be considered critical.

The Watergate scandal would have remained secret without Felt's ability to trust that reporters would keep his identity secret even as they verified the information he passed along. In a similar way, reporters today sometimes have little choice but to make similar arrangements with their sources in order to report facts that serve the public interest. And yet prosecutors and judges are becoming bolder and more frivolous in the way they subpoena those reporters and threaten them with jail unless they reveal those sources.

The most recent example concerns the San Francisco Chronicle reporters whose dogged efforts shed light on the alleged steroid and substance abuse by baseball star Barry Bonds. They have been subpoenaed. Clearly, that is a case that has nothing to do with national security.

Even in civil cases, such as the Wen Ho Lee privacy lawsuit, the Supreme Court has denied news outlets' attempts to challenge subpoenas seeking the identities of confidential sources.

The shield law under consideration, which is sponsored by senators from both parties, would allow prosecutors, defendants and even civil litigants to compel reporters to testify if they can show they have exhausted all other means for getting information, and when a judge decides such a thing would be in the public's interest. It would not protect them from testifying if they have witnessed a crime, or if the information they hold would save a life or thwart a terrorist.

That's a far cry from giving reporters carte blanche to keep everything they do secret regardless of the consequences. It would, however, set the balance straight. The media need to be free to offer anonymity to sources when that is the only way to get vital information. Without such freedom, Americans would have one less check against abuses by government and the private sector. Future Watergates might go undetected as influential people abuse their power.

Most states have passed their own shield laws. Utah is not one. However, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has been a strong supporter of the idea, citing many of the reasons we have. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. We urge him to help this bill pass favorably to the Senate floor, on its way to becoming law.