Senators debate ‘shield law’ for journalists

Worried by recent cases of prosecutors and judges trying to force reporters to reveal confidential sources, some state lawmakers are proposing a “shield law” for journalists.

Without such protections, proponents say, reporters increasingly face a painful choice: Betray a whistle-blower or face incarceration. And sources, they say, are more and more leery of contacting reporters.

“As each new reporter-goes-to-jail case makes the headlines, potential whistle-blowers move further into the background,” Spokesman-Review Editor Steven A. Smith told a state Senate committee Tuesday during a hearing at Spokane’s Davenport Hotel.

Under a bill proposed last session, no one – not even a judge – could order a reporter to reveal a confidential source in state court.

“We should honor promises that promote freedom of discussion, not penalize them,” said Bruce Johnson, an attorney for Allied Daily Newspapers. “… Increasingly, over the last four or five years, we’ve seen a much tougher stance taken toward working journalists.”

Such protections already exist for lawyers, priests and doctors.

The bill also would have extended a limited protection to reporters’ notes and recordings. A judge could order disclosure only if four key conditions are met.

The bill failed, in large part because of objections from lawmakers, attorneys and businesses who maintain that such protections aren’t necessary.

For one thing, they say, no one who’s appeared before lawmakers has been able to recall a case where a Washington reporter was forced to reveal a name or has gone to jail.

“It has never happened in the state of Washington,” said Sen. Brian Weinstein, R-Mercer Island.

Mel Sorensen, a lobbyist for the state’s Defense Trial Lawyers Association, said the bill also defined journalists too broadly.

“Any blogger, those who are in the process of collecting and disseminating information … could arguably say they are media,” Sorensen told lawmakers. Political party officials, trade groups and others, he said, could hide behind a shield law.

And making it impossible for a court to try to find the source of a news leak or report, he said, could compromise the ability of people to get a fair hearing in court.

“We think that there are many circumstances where it’s impossible to get to the facts without having a source,” Sorensen said.

Without a shield law, The Spokesman-Review often generally asks key anonymous sources to agree to step forward publicly if the paper is sued, Smith told lawmakers.

“Seeking that waiver has become standard operating procedure for newspapers all over the country, in the face of these threats,” he said. There have been cases where the paper hasn’t published information because a critical source wouldn’t agree to such conditions, he said. The result: a “chilling effect” on the public’s right to know.

“This is about protecting the public interest, not journalists,” said Smith.

Smith and Spokesman-Review investigative reporter Karen Dorn Steele told lawmakers that confidential sources have been key to breaking important stories. Among them: revelations of critical safety violations at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation; corporate pollution of the Spokane River; fire and police department scandals; and last year’s revelations that the late Spokane Mayor Jim West was offering internships or city positions to young men in whom he was sexually interested.

“Most of us would choose jail over betraying a source. I know I would,” said Dorn Steele.

Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, worried that a shield law would make it impossible to penalize reporters who make up lies and attribute the information to confidential sources.

“People’s lives can be ruined by a story, whether it goes to court or not,” he said.

Johnson countered that the media are highly self-critical and that fabricators are outed, their careers ruined.

“That’s like legislators saying ‘trust us,’ ” Hargrove said. “So don’t give us that.”

“Those jokers (lying reporters) are weeded out from the process,” Johnson said.