A shield for the press
- India goes to poll in 9 phases between April 7 and May 12; counting on May 16
- Sheila Dikshit appointed Kerala Governor; Congress-RJD pact likely today
- You told us go to hell, says Supreme Court, sends Subrata Roy to jail
- For âcheeringâ Pakistan in India match, university in Meerut suspends 67 Kashmiri students
- Attacker, victim: 2 faces of Gujarat riots come together for âHindu-Muslimâ unity
A federal law to protect sources will maintain a check on a state known to abuse its powers
CONGRESSMAN Ted Poe and I are not what you'd call kindred spirits. He's a shrink-the-government-then-drown-it-in-the-bathtub Texas Republican. He comes from a political tribe that regards the mainstream media as a hive of Bolsheviks. Yet, Poe and I see eye to eye on one thing. He is the main House sponsor of a bill intended to protect journalists from being compelled to give up information about their government sources, even when the sources have divulged matters of national security.
For Poe and quite a few like-minded conservatives, a law to shield confidential sources is not about pampering the press. It is about maintaining a check on a big government that has been known to abuse its powers.
Thanks in part to the outrage over two aggressive government leak hunts — the AP case and the electronic tracking of a Fox News correspondent — there is now a flicker of hope that Poe's bill will become law. President Obama, as part of his professed intention of softening the security state he inherited and enhanced, has revived the idea of a federal shield law. A federal shield law has been a goal of news organisations for decades. Such legislation has passed the House twice with large bipartisan majorities, and in 2009 a version won the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee — only to stall after the haemorrhage of classified documents from the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.
A lot of people I respect, including some eminent journalists, have questioned the idea that Congress should exempt reporters from the civic duty to give evidence. Critics complain that a sanctimonious press is quick to wrap itself in the First Amendment but often slow to acknowledge that some secrets are worth keeping. A closer look at the two cases currently fuelling media indignation suggests they have a point. I think the justice department had ample reason to find these particular leaks troubling. At the very least, both put enemies on guard. In neither case was the leak hunt launched to silence a whistleblower or hide official malfeasance; on the contrary, both leaks revealed intelligence agencies doing their jobs. And in pursuing the leakers, the justice department was doing its.