Democracy’s shield

Washington and Idaho are among the 19 states without a reporters shield law, which protects the identity of confidential sources. The free flow of information is hindered in both states without this protection.

Most Americans have become aware of this issue through the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Because there is no federal shield law, the special prosecutor was able to jail New York Times reporter Judith Miller for nearly three months over her refusal to divulge a source, even though she didn’t even write about the Plame matter.

Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna says the Miller jailing was an eye-opener for him and that’s why he is pursuing a shield law that would grant absolute privilege for journalists when it comes to revealing confidential sources.

Such a law would be a boon to those who want to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Oftentimes such sources feel they must remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. For an example of revenge, just return to the Plame case. Administration officials couldn’t harm Wilson, because he was no longer employed. So they went after his wife.

McKenna’s bill, HB 2452, sailed through the House on a bipartisan 87-11 vote on Feb. 13. On Thursday, the bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and could be brought to a floor vote soon.

As is, the bill would be a step forward, because these issues now rest on case law, which is subject to a wide range of interpretations and requires extensive litigation. But the bill is not perfect. While it offers absolute privilege on confidential sources, it leaves the door open for law enforcement or civil attorneys to access unpublished notes, photographs, video and tape recordings. Reporters would be able to conceal the names of confidential sources if such access were granted.

Oregon’s shield law offers more protections for work products, but another bill that would’ve mirrored Oregon’s has already died in Olympia.

We would prefer that journalists be allowed to remain neutral in disputes by not having to turn over unpublished materials, but we don’t think the absence of those protections in the McKenna bill is a deal-breaker.

Under McKenna’s bill, a judge would still have to approve of access to journalists’ materials, and those seeking them would have to demonstrate that the information is vital to their cases and that the request is being made as a last resort.

More importantly, stalling the bill over this issue could endanger its passage altogether. And that means no progress when it comes to shielding confidential sources.

The alliance between conscientious whistle-blowers and reporters is critical to shedding light on issues of public interest. We urge the Senate to quickly pass this bill to strengthen the watchdog role of a free press.