Public Opinion: Does the Media Need a Shield Law to Protect Confidential Sources?
Should the media's confidential sources be protected, or would it jeopardize national security?
Increased focus on national security has brought into sharp relief the split between the media and the government over classified leaks. Reporters have been jailed for refusing to identify sources. Media advocates like Lucy Dalglish of the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press argue that Congress should pass a law allowing reporters to withhold their sources' identities in all but the most critical national security circumstances. Opponents of the proposed law, like the Department of Justice's Elisebeth C. Cook, say such a media shield would jeopardize our nation's safety. Does the country need a "shield law" allowing journalists to withhold their sources' identities? Post your thoughts below.
Previously: Is John Edwards' affair a legitmate story?
Reader Comments
Shield Law
I am sorry but I hold the vast majority of the news media in very low regard. Sensationalism rules and often like political agendas result in leaks by Government officials to bend public opinion and force the opposition to capitulate. This is not an occasional happening! Senator Rockefeller or his office released senate intelligence committee information in order to accuse the administration of 'illegal' wire taps-a top secret program. The illegality was debatable but, I submit, the political damage to the administration was not. This was preferable to debating this in government and finding ways to protect our COUNTRY FIRST!
We do need a free press but we also need honest, responsible journalist rather than political partisans posing as journalists.
Shield law
Journalist must be held accountable for what they write, and if this means they maybe impelled to disclose their source of information, so be it. In my opinion the public does not have a need or right to know how the government is collecting information in the fight against terrorism. It was the media that alerted terrorist that the US was able to monitor satellite and cell phone transmissions, and allowed them to change their means of communication to make it more difficult to monitor. It was journalist, that even back during WW II, alerted the Japans that US submarines were avoiding their depth charge attacks by submerging below 200 ft. Which allowed the Japans to change their tactics, resulting in the increased number of deaths of US servicemen. So when it comes to protecting national security, and human life, the media should not be allowed to hide behind "freedom of the press", when it publishes an article.
shield law
THE CONSTITION PROVIDES FOR THE RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS. WHEN JUDGES START THREATING THE MEMBERS OF THE PRESS TO PRODUCE THE ORIGIN OF NEWS STORIES UNDER THREAT OF IMPRISIONMENT WE MUST REALIZE THAT IS A THREAT TO THAT FREEDOM. IF THE OBTAINING OF INFORMATION IS HAMPERED IN ANY WAY YOU HAVE VIOLATED THAT RIGHT.THE WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS CAME TO BE BECAUSE OF THE KNOWLEDGE HAD BY THE WRITERS OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN EUROPE WHEN THE PRESS WAS RESTRICTED UNDER THREAT OF REPRISERAL BY THE RULERS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT BEN FRANKLIN'S EARLY WRITEINGS HE USED A FICTICOUS NAME FOR A REASON.
advertisement
