News sources need protection
08/23/06
Two more reporters are facing jail time for refusing to reveal confidential sources in matters of great public concern.
Meanwhile, legislative bills that could keep them out of jail languish in congressional committees.
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada of the San Francisco Chronicle have been ordered to reveal who leaked grand jury testimony regarding an investigation into a lab supplying athletes with steroids.
The reporters were the ones who broke the story that several major-league baseball players were using performance-enhancing drugs supplied by a San Francisco-area laboratory. The stories were based on transcripts of a secret grand jury probe of the lab.
Had they come before a California state judge, Williams and Fainaru-Wada would not be facing jail time; they would be protected by a state law granting reporters the right to keep their sources confidential. Unfortunately, they are in federal court where no such privilege exists.
If their appeal fails, Williams and Fainaru-Wada would not be the first reporters sent to jail for refusing to out a source. New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to divulge who told her the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Freelance writer Vanessa Leggett was incarcerated for almost 18 months for refusing to turn over notes on a murder case to federal investigators.
Some members of Congress are trying to fix the problem by creating a federal shield law. It is long overdue.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., has sponsored a bill in the Senate creating a qualified privilege for reporters. Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., have sponsored a similar bill in the House. The proposed laws would create a privilege requiring government to exhaust all other avenues for obtaining information before compelling a reporter to identify a confidential source.
They also require the government to establish that a greater public good is served by compelling reporters to reveal their sources than is served by the free flow of the information itself.
At present, the bills are stalled in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Some lawmakers are expressing concerns about allowing reporters to protect sources who divulge information pertaining to national intelligence gathering. The measures also face opposition from the Department of Justice on the grounds that they would impede the pursuit of terrorists.
We find both worries to be unfounded. These bills deserve a fair hearing in the committees and a debate by the full House and Senate.
A reporter's privilege would benefit the public by allowing the media to bring information on important public issues to light without fear. Many times, people who have knowledge of such matters do not want to come forward for fear of retaliation. Allowing journalists to protect the identities of such sources ensures that the public gets the information it needs.
Watergate, the Pentagon Papers and the Pike report about CIA assassinations, domestic spying and other misdeeds are among the major stories that likely would not have been reported if sources could not come forward with an assurance of confidentiality. Williams and Fainaru-Wada's reports led to a Congressional inquiry into steroid abuse in baseball. They also spurred Major League Baseball to enact a meaningful policy on steroids. Reforming the national pastime is a fair trade for allowing reporters to protect their sources.
We urge Utah Republicans who sit on the judiciary committees in Congress -- Sen. Orrin G. Hatch and U.S. Rep Chris Cannon -- to urge a hearing of this matter soon. Journalists must have the means to fulfill their First Amendment mandate of keeping government accountable to the people.
