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?
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.
Shield law
In this Forum, both authors are right: a free press does benefit the public, and, no, we should not imperil national security. The law shouldn't be viewed as an either/or scenario. It's in our country's best interest to know about corruption, but it's also in our best interest to keep secret the investigation of terrorist organizations.
Couldn't the shield law protect whistle-blowers while condemning law-breaking government employees who leak classified information to the press?
shield law
While I realize most of your readers are of the liberal bent I will agree and disagree with a shield law. Our government must also be shielded from overly agressive journalistd who feel it's their duty to tell everything they get whether it places our government and successivlty the people of this country in jepardy. There needs to be some restrictions within a shield law that make reporters that creats unnecessary harm to the inteligence community and puts our country in peril, liable to forfit they're immunity from prosecution. Would this dampen some reporters agressivenes? yes but in some instances that would be a good thing, like when our national security is at stake. I think most Americans know that reporters/journalists are of the liberal left perusasisn and I believe that if they can harm the conservativs they will go for it regardles of the consequences.
Shield Law
Congress should pass the Shield Law, allowing media protection from revealing the identity of confidential sources of information.
FREEDOM
As Benjamin Franklin put it so well: "THOSE WHO WOULD CHOOSE SECURITY OVER LIBERTY DESERVE NEITHER".
America is not some banana republic run by an "elected" dictator or despot although the elected despot in training currently inhabiting the Office of the Vice President would certainly disagree. A shield law is necessary in order to protect the group of people on whom we all depend to report what the government is or is not doing regarding "the people's business". Since politics has now become all about the sound bite and telling the citizens why they should NOT vote for somebody rather than a rational discussion of what a specific candidate feels would be appropriate ways to do the people's business the press remains the eyes and ears of the citizens. Having said that, I must also call to account the press for being more interested in "breaking a story" than doing the business of informing the citizens of important problems in doing the government's business. I lost a great deal of respect for the "free press" when major news outlets allowed their reporters to be "embedded" in Iraq for not realizing that what "embedded" really means is that the reporter is NOT in control of the story as the story is being "fed"to the reporter by the group with whom the reporter is "embedded". What that means to me is that the "free press" is more than willing to do it the easy way and SHAME ON THEM! One can not "keep them honest" if one is "embedded" within the very group one is to "keep honest". A truly "free press" does not "embed" with the subject of their reporting--that's called Public Relations.
Shield Law
I have read both the pro and con viewpoints concerning this law and have to say that the response of Ms. Cook, writing for the DOJ are disingenuous at best. Karl Rove leaks the name of a CIA operative and walks without punishment. Soooter Libby is found guilty of perjury and impeding an investigation into a serious felony and is immediately pardoned by the sitting "President". Please do NOT insult my intelligence by telling me that leakers will be pursued and punished! As to the tired old terrorism defense for everything that comes out of this administration's mouth, I for one am tired of the constant attempts to silence disagreement in this country by threatening those who question policy by invoking the fear of "the next attack". Again, please do NOT insult my intelligence. I would suggest that information that truly requires "close hold" on information NOT be disseminated throughout the government and then, if leaked it would certainly be easy to determine the leaker. It is a sad commentary that the example Ms. Cook choses to use of leakers giving information to "prove that the government is doing its job" is commentary addressing the fact that a substantial number of Americans do not feel that the government is doing the job they were sent there to do. I find it impossible to support Ms. Cook's thesis that the shield law will "overly restrict the government's ability to enforce laws" when the sitting President selectively declassified parts of a classified document so that his political stratagist, the sitting Vice Preident and that VP's chief of staff could break an existing law regarding disclosure of the identity of a CIA operative and the only one "brought to justice" was immediately pardoned. To quote Stone Phillips: "GIVE ME A BREAK"! How stupid does this administration really think the average American citizen is? Apparently, they think we're pretty stupid or gullible or both.
Shield Law
The August 18/25, 2008, edition of US News & World Report contained two articles, Pro and Con regarding the pending “Shield Law” legislation. I happen to agree with Ms. Lucy Dalglish that the US needs this legislation. We must convince the US Senate to finally vote on and pass the “Shield Law” legislation and find a way to avoid a possible veto by President Bush.
The second article, by Ms. Elisebeth C. Cook contained valid agreements against the passage of the “Shield Law” legislation. She sited several incidents where information was leaked to reporters related to on-going criminal investigations that once the reporters wrote their stories, caused damage to the investigations. This is a significant problem but there is a very simple solution – jail any individual who leaks unauthorized information related to on-going criminal or civil litigation.
I realize this is a simplistic resolution to this serious matter and with our “Politically Correct” nation this type of result would never be enforced let alone approved. However, if we as a nation finally realize “Politically Correct” does not mean coddling people or groups rather than treating everyone equally, maybe realistic legislation can be approved that all will live with.
Shield Law
"State Secrets" and "National Security" -- China, Myanmar and the Soviet Union/Russia and their "News," need I say more ? The article auythor that applauds maximum US Government secrecy is from the most secretive and ideologically driven DOJ in our history has to tell you something.
A Free Press doesn't protect itself.
