About that Shield Law

There has been near unanimous support, in the media, for a law making its way through Congress that would protect journalists from revealing confidential sources. And this scribe is inclined to cheer on the bill. But there's an interesting contrary view at Slate from Jack Shafer who notes that the proposed law is not an out-and-out shield: it would simply force the government to show why reporters should be required to testify about sources - a hurdle, he suggests, that is quite surmountable.

Moreover, he writes, the government has rarely gone after reporters. And current guidelines are murky enough that prosecutors can wriggle out of pursuing these uncomfortable cases. The new law provides a clearer sort of rule that the press - lobbying hard for the bill - might come to rue, he writes.

A federal shield law would reduce this helpful murk by legally codifying the process of subpoenaing journalists. Prosecutors and judges could now say to the press, We have this new law that balances the First Amendment with the government's need for important and sensitive information that you hold. We're going to walk through it very slowly, and no bellyaching if we tell you to give up a source. You wrote the goddamn thing and lobbied Congress to pass it!