The federal government’s increasing penchant for secrecy and its aggressive pursuit of whistle-blowers are seriously hindering the media’s ability to perform their watchdog role. Congress needs to redress the imbalance by adopting a federal shield law that protects confidential sources and keeps journalists out of jail.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., heard arguments on whether two reporters should go to jail for refusing to cooperate with the special prosecutor investigating the Valerie Plame case. Plame is the CIA operative whose name was divulged in a column written by Robert Novak in the summer of 2003. It is a crime to reveal the name of an undercover agent.

Apparently, the government source or sources who blew Plame’s cover contacted several reporters, including Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper and the New York Times’ Judith Miller. For reasons that aren’t readily apparent, Novak is not one of the journalists facing jail time. In any event, Cooper and Miller, who never wrote an article about Plame, have refused to tell prosecutors who it was that tipped them off. Now they are trying to fight off a jail sentence.

Before discussing the First Amendment ramifications, we should note that we do not condone the act of revealing a spy’s name. It is a serious matter and should be pursued. However, we do object to the government using the media to solve the case.

First, it was unnecessary. The Bush administration could have handled the matter itself by immediately pursuing those few people in the executive branch who are privy to such classified information. Instead, a special prosecutor was named five months after the column was published.

Second, treating the media as an extension of law enforcement is an impediment to a free press. Many sources will stop talking to the media without the promise of confidentiality, and that means the spread of government secrecy will continue unabated.

To see why the country needs a federal shield law for the media, consider that the feds spent $6.5 billion to create 14 million new classified documents in 2003, according to openthegovernment.org. Vast categories of information that were once public have been removed from public scrutiny. Because leaking that information is now a crime, the chilling effect is obvious. On top of that, the government has been more aggressive in chasing down leaks.

Thirty-one states have laws that give reporters varying levels of protection against divulging their sources. U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has proposed a bill that would extend protections to reporters in federal cases. At a time when we are promoting democracy worldwide, Congress should show that it respects the role of the First Amendment in keeping government open and honest at home.