Time is right for shield law

Congress now has two versions of a federal shield law for reporters to consider. We hope this means momentum is building toward passing something meaningful.

Granting legal protections for reporters is more than just something to make our jobs easier. It is something that would provide vital protections for the American people. Journalists, of course, are not perfect. Nor are they infallible. But then, neither are government employees, administrators and politicians. In an imperfect world, safeguards against corruption and error are necessary.

Journalists are kept honest by the many voices that prevail in a nation that protects free speech and a free press. In today's world, bloggers and competing news outlets can set the record straight. In addition, journalists and editors are exposed to libel suits if they maliciously attack people. But if the government abuses rights or engages in corruption, exposure may not come as easily.

Often, reporters rely on someone coming to them to expose the truth. In too many cases, however, government attorneys and federal judges try to force reporters to reveal the names of these whistle-blowers. Sometimes, as in the recent effort to determine who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, reporters are jailed even though prosecutors could learn the truth in other ways. Sometimes, the only concern is to avoid embarrassment in high places. That probably explains the aborted attempt by federal officials to confiscate part of the estate of the late journalist Jack Anderson.

Every time a journalist is jailed for not revealing a source, people with information about official corruption become less likely to tell what they know. If a reporter can't guarantee anonymity, some sources won't take the risk. Watergate is the prime historic example of the value of such guarantees.

Of the two bills currently in circulation, the House version seems best. It is more concise and clear. But both it and the Senate version would allow exceptions when national security is at stake, or when the information a reporter has would prevent a crime or act of terrorism. A judge would have to determine whether the public would stand to gain more from forcing a reporter to reveal information or from the gathering and dissemination of the information being reported.

That is the bottom line, after all. The public needs access to a free flow of information. Without that, the nation can't adequately protect its freedoms.