It will come as no surprise that this newspaper supports a bill that shields journalists from prison if they refuse to divulge confidential sources. But there’s much at stake for lawmakers and the general public, too.

Lawmakers can demonstrate that they respect the special watchdog role performed by the media. They can show their understanding of secrecy’s corrosive effect on democracy.

The public would win because it could be assured that there is an avenue for insiders to blow the whistle without fear of reprisals.

Critics of shield laws maintain that the media already publish exposes without them. Watergate, Iran-Contra and Abu Ghraib are just some of the examples of scandals unearthed with the use of confidential sources.

That’s true, but it’s only because prosecutors historically have seen the greater public interest in having those secrets revealed vs. pursuing those who revealed them.

But the legal landscape has changed, and prosecutors have begun to aggressively pursue whistle-blowers, even if they have to go after the media to do so.

That reversal certainly caught the attention of Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who led the charge for a state shield law last year. He said he was taken aback by the pressure applied to the media in the Valerie Plame case.

He’s not the only one who has noticed the difference. Mark Corallo, who was the spokesman for former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, told PBS’ “Frontline” that he was stunned by the threatened jailing of the two reporters in the BALCO case, in which the San Francisco Chronicle used leaked grand jury testimony to report that Barry Bonds and other ballplayers confessed to steroid use.

“I never believed that that was necessary, because I always believed that … people at the Justice Department were responsible enough to live by the guidelines; that they would only use it sparingly, in exigent circumstances, as defined. That seems to have changed. …”

The increased pressure on the media to become a tool of prosecutors is why state lawmakers in Washington and Idaho can no longer put off the adoption of shield laws. The same goes for Congress, where a federal law failed to pass last year.

Unfortunately, there is little activity in Congress or in Idaho, but a bill has sailed through the Washington House of Representatives on a 96-0 vote in Olympia. The Senate has a competing version that narrows the scope of who would be covered, namely journalists whose financial livelihood is dependent upon their work. Authors of Internet blogs or the occasional opinion piece would not be protected.

Last year the bill was derailed over a debate on whether a journalist’s “work product” (unpublished notes, tape recordings, etc.) would be granted an absolute or qualified privilege.

We’d like to see a broad definition for “journalists” and an absolute privilege for notes and tapes, but we don’t think the bill should be held hostage again over the matter. Legislators can always come back later to refine the law. What’s of paramount interest now is the absolute privilege for protecting confidential sources.

Without it, government secrecy and corruption wins.