www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office American Civil Liberties Union Homepage Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU
Jun 3rd, 2008
Posted by Ilyse Veron at 09:44am

Keeping Reporters Out of Jail and On the Beat

By Ilyse Veron, former media reporter for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Which ACLU Membership Conference speaker — and influential Republican — recently and astutely opined this way in The Washington Post? (Using the hyperlink is cheating.)

The importance of a free press is so woven into the fabric of our history that Americans often take it for granted. But when we observe fledgling democracies around the world, Americans can see just how essential a free media are to democracy — and how easily they can be chilled. If we are to have a free press, it is necessary to protect the relationship between journalists and trusted sources to whom journalists have promised confidentiality. For this reason, every state but Wyoming has established some form of reporters' privilege.
And the answer is…

Sen. Arlen Specter. Sen. Specter is heading to the membership conference to address the ACLU plenary as reporter shield legislation is under consideration in the Congress. He has been a champion of the Free Flow of Information Act, which is the first reporter shield bill in decades that is close to getting enacted, and he reminds all of us “a media shield law would not primarily be protection for journalists; it would be protection for the public and for our form of government.”

That being said, nationally acclaimed reporters Toni Locy and Jim Risen, who will also be presenting at the conference, know first hand why a media shield law would really come in handy in a very serious way.

As Sen. Specter also noted, “It takes only a few well-publicized cases of the government or federal courts forcing reporters to reveal confidential sources — Time's Matt Cooper; former New York Times reporter Judith Miller spending 85 days in jail; or former USA Today reporter Toni Locy being ordered to pay up to $5,000 for each day she remains silent, with no contributions allowed from her employer, family or friends — to chill those who have important things to say.”

Journalists are standing their ground against tough odds.

Today, journalists face more jail time and higher fines than at any other time in American history, often receiving greater punishment than those convicted of the crimes reported by journalists. In recent years over 30 journalists have been jailed for not identifying confidential sources, according to ACLU research, compared to only five convicted under the Sedition Act of 1798.

New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner Jim Risen is currently fighting a grand jury subpoena for testimony about his sources for a 2006 book on the CIA called State of War.

Government prosecutors are trying to identify Mr. Risen's sources for the book as well as for articles he wrote for The Times about the nation's spy agencies, to determine if any of the sources violated laws on the sharing of classified information.

Clearly journalists need the reporters' shield bill like the Free Flow of Information Act, which would give them the ability to better protect their sources' identities in certain circumstances without the fear of jail or steep fines. The Act does provide different rules for situations when the information about sources is essential to our national security or if a criminal act is involved, but it is critical that we all ensure that these rules are not too broad.

If written too broadly the rules could allow the government to use them any time it wants to get information from a reporter.

Send a letter to your senator asking him or her to support the Free Flow of Information Act. Ask your senators to support the meaningful protections for reporters. The House overwhelmingly passed its bi-partisan bill late last year, and we must urge the Senate to do the same now. It is important that any compromise not gut the bill. Of course, the ACLU supports reasonable exceptions for national security or criminal acts but the final bill must give reporters meaningful protection. We need to protect reporters and their sources for democracy to continue to flourish.

A Blog of Rights Service Announcement: We are currently implementing some exciting new changes to this website. While we work on this, blog comments have been disabled. But they'll be back up ASAP, so hold that thought and you'll be able to submit your comment soon.

5 Responses to "Keeping Reporters Out of Jail and On the Beat"

  1. Jenn Says:

    Just contacted my NC senators about this (not that they're willing recipients), and plan on writing a diary about this on DKos.

    John McCain hates me and my right to choose.

  2. ASImpleDad Says:

    So reporters are to be more equal than other mere citizens? They are to have more rights than I, a mere citizen, because of the job they hold? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. We have managed to have a free flow of ideas without these laws for what, it's been a couple of years at least since this country was started, why do we now need to elevate some citizens above others as far as protections from the law? Are we all equal or not?

  3. Marina Says:

    ASImpleDad, reporter shield laws don't just protect reporters but ordinary people who want to give information to reporters anonymously. If reporters can be put in jail for not revealing their sources, then their sources, often ordinary people who could face loosing their jobs or worse, are not protected either.

  4. fred Says:

    they should be jailing all the reporters..and aclu lawyers while they are at it...that would help our country get back on the right track!

  5. JimSpiel Says:

    The proposal is a change in scope beyond the original Amendment. The original provides freedom of press but not breaking the laws. This fudges about breaking the laws, claiming service to a greater good warrants giving reporters certain rights above certain laws.

    So how will this work? As a group, reporters are no more competent or honest than the rest of us. Any new privilege they receive will be abused by some, just as some already abuse their current privileges. Remember Dan Rather and Jayson Blair? (Ever wonder if a Pulitzer for news reporting is actually an award for writing fiction?)

    Will this law somehow improve the reliability of reporting? Debatable, I'd expect some increase in governmental exposes, but also an increase in bogus stories.

    Is there really a problem that warrants this solution? The media thinks so, but they're too involved for their judgment to be considered neutral and credible.
    On the contrary, some two hundred years without the law argues strongly against its need.

    An uptick in cases? The evidence presented is usually anecdotal, never in context, like as a % of comparable investigative stories sampled over a long time.

    This is advertised as protection against the government. What if prosecutors are doing the right thing? Not every government official is sleaze, despite the media's natural focus on the sleaze. What if a reporter makes up a story and then claims the shield? Another Pulitzer I suppose.

    What if I have been wronged by a story and the reporter claims privilege - since it's a civil cause I guess I'm SOL. Thanks a lot.

    Looking at the big picture, I'd expect some checks and balances, something to prevent the abuse of a newly expanded power, but there don't seem to be any included. Seems to have a design flaw.

    Bottom Line: Such a federal law would probably both increase the number of governmental exposes but would also lead to more abuses of shield laws. A convincing argument has not been made.

Comment

 

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map

Statistics image