Reader comments
In our opinion: Don't amend shield law

How does it feel to have the heavy hand of government in your industry. Welcome to the real world of the rest of us.

The press always wants absolute freedom to act accroding to ITS perception of the public's need. It seems to think, however, that absolute freedom of action should be accompanied by absolute freedom from sanctions, even when it acts irresponsibly or possibly illegally. When a public employee or a corporate official causes damage to someone or commits an act that is arguably improper, the press is all over them. Yet, when reporters publish the secret deliberations of a grand jury, a very clear and absolute violation of federal law, the press argues that the reporters have done something commendable and claims the first amendment is at risk if the reporters are threatened with legal action. Lets start holding the press responsible just like other powerful organizations. It is in a position to cause tremendous harm to persons. Reporters and media companies should have only marginally greater immunity from legal sanctions when they harm someone than is a doctor when he harms a patient. We've got good medicine despite tort law. We could still have good - and more responsible - press coverage if the media were held responsible for their negligent acts.

No special privileges for the traditional media.

If mainstream journalists traffic in the lies of the smearbund -- whether from within the government or outside the government -- they should be held accountable.

A principle that is at the very foundation of our system of justice is that the accused has the right to confront his accuser. The shielding of a source of information disallows that confrontation.

The "Yellow Journalism" that flourished during the life of Joseph Smith is still being used today as source material "proving" that Joseph Smith was someone other that who he really was.

Shielding a "source" may give the Press short-term freedom to report news that needs to be reported; however, at some point that secret "source" needs to be held accountable for the information that he/she gave to the reporter, otherwise the risk of letting some "secret source" become the vehicle used to run-down an unpopular person or unpopular cause is too great. If you doubt this, just visit your closest magazine reseller and look at the articles being written about Glenn Beck. He's really ruffled some feathers in the Obama Administration. Is there any doubt that they have spread "information" with their "secret sources" that is being used by their friends in the media to blunt the force of Glenn Beck's attacks on the Obama Administration?

It is great to read the comments so far. Especially as our concept of media changes and more and more people turn to amateur bloggers or part time reporters for their news, carving out a special exception for established, traditional, brick-and-mortar media outlets seems particularly troublesome.

What makes a person a real or "legitimate" reporter these days? The young fellow and gal who made the undercover tapes of ACORN's willingness to help facilitate child prostitution and sex trade are far more "legit" in my view than the typical papparatzi presuming some "right" to take photos of celebs' babies and weddings.

The worst punishment we impose in this nation for refusing to give up a source is temporary confinement in a modern, safe, jail. It amounts to a contempt of court charge. Let the individual reporters weigh the importance of protecting a source with his own temporary freedom.

NOBODY should be above the law and once a judge determines that the accused or government has legit need to confront the source, anyone with information about the id of the source, should be expected to provide it, or pay the personal price for not doing so.

Judith Miller and her cohorts in the news had memory lapses and questionable testimony to railroad Scooter Libby into jail. They were so after getting Cheney, they were willing to lie and cover. Not much sympathy for them from this front.

I worry about what happens when a reporter divulges something that hurts our national security, some confidential report or news. Are we really not going to hold the reporter and the source not responsible? There have to be consequences for putting lives at risk.

What about the case of Valerie Plame? In the end it came out the Armitage, who I believe was a State Dept. or CIA official, divulged her information. (By the way she wasn't covert like many tried to claim.) Meanwhile a special prosecutor went on an unnecessary witch hunt. What happens when someone innocent has their reputation ruined? A reporter (and source) doesn't have to take responsibility for that?


And why are being who are "unauthorized to speak" divulging information? Is it really necessary to have anonymous sources for the scoop on everything?

The interests of journalists in keeping their information confidential should be guarded only to a certain degree. The problem is that journalists in general do not necessarily have the best interest of the public in mind. The decision to not reveal a source is based on a strong political agenda.We no longer have as many objective reporters as much as political crusaders.

It is a very thin line behind changing a shield law, and censorship. These laws exist to inform citizens of government, and serve as a check on government.
Ideally, and sadly not always the case, the media would govern itself responsibly, and not jeopardize national security. But the general rule in the media is:" If I don't publish this, someone else will, and we will lose money".
All in all, I would leave the laws alone. If you think the media is irresponsible, don't subsidize it with your money.

Newspapers are just in the business of making money. They should not be given "additional" protection, they have too much already. Their smear tactics and misinformation have gotten way out of control.

If they don't want it outted by the press, don't tell the press. The government has the right to secrete meetings on important things, but must have open debate..... Same is true for the courts....

Don't punish the press for passing on what can be found out by an unprivileged citizen and don't seek them out to pass on “secret” information. If the information is secret then keep it. If the informant has broken a law by divulging unauthorized information then subpena the press with secrecy so a formal investigation of illegal action can take place.

The press, like anyone else, is not absolved from the consequences of aiding and abetting or assessory laws.

Nor are they absolved from libel and slander for unvetted/unsubstantiated information being published...

If the people of the USA lose a totally free press they will lose their liberty and freedom. The press is different from other businesses: it is the eyes and ears of the people and a source of truth.

No one disagrees with the proposition that we need a free press, but all to often journalists abuse that right by publishing information that they know is false.

What about published articles based on "confidential sources" that in fact do not exist? Examples are numerous.

If journalists abuse their power, they lose their immunities from the consequences.