Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Shield

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted July 25, 2005.


Why is the White House opposed to a law giving federal protection to the media's confidential sources?
Advertisement

"The media plays a critical role in our society," Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. "The freedom of the press is a hallowed American right, and in a time when news can be sent around the world almost instantaneously, it is as important as ever that the American people be kept informed of what is happening overseas, in Washington, and in their hometowns."

So why did Comey then argue against passage of a proposed law that would require the federal government to join 49 states and the District of Columbia in 'shielding' reporters to protect them from having to reveal confidential sources?

National security, of course.

The government's "ability to effectively enforce the law and fight terrorism" will be seriously impeded if the law is passed, he says. Such a bill "is bad public policy" and "would place an unreasonable burden upon the Government" in connection with sensitive grand jury investigations.

No matter that dozens of elected officials -- ranging from conservative Republicans Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. Pete Domenici to liberal Democrats Sen. Russell Feingold and Rep. Rahm Emmanuel -- and disparate companies ranging from ABC to Ziff Davis all support the "Free Flow of Information Act." Hell, even Time editor-in-chief/media turncoat Norman Pearlstine -- who recently caved in to prosecutorial pressure and outed reporter Matt Cooper's source in the Valerie Plame/CIA/WMD investigation -- argued in favor of the bill.

But not Comey & Co ...

Instead, President Bush's Department of Justice announced its fervid opposition to the proposed legislation, which would protect journalists from having to divulge sources in most instances, on the grounds that we must combat terrorism. Comey claims that certain definitions in the proposed legislation are ambiguous and "cover criminal or terrorist organizations that also have media operations, including many foreign terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda (which, from its founding, maintained a media office that published a newsletter)."

Does Comey actually believe that al Qaeda will claim to be a legitimate media organization and send an attorney to appear in federal court to offer a legal challenge under the shield law? Apparently so. "Indeed, the inherent difficulty of appropriately defining a 'covered person' in a world in which the very definition of 'media' is constantly evolving, suggests yet another fundamental weakness in the bill," his argument continues. "What could be shielded here is not so much the traditional media -- which already is protected adequately by existing Justice Department guidelines -- as criminal activity deliberately or fortuitously using means or facilities in the course of the offenses that would cause the perpetrators to fall within the definition of the media under the bill."

Passage of the proposed law would merely bring federal rules into line with similar laws in 31 states and the District of Columbia. (Courts in eighteen other states have established protections for reporters.) But Comey contends that the proposed federal shield law can't be compared with the state laws already in place, because "None of the states deals with classified information in the way that the Federal government does, and no state is tasked with defending the nation as a whole or conducting international diplomacy."

The Justice Department national security objection is puzzlingly out of date, however, because the shield law has already been revised to address valid national security concerns. Eminently reasonable amendments added recently to the proposed bill would "prevent imminent and actual harm to the national security" by forcing disclosure of confidential sources in case of an actual and urgent threat. Although Comey's statement opposing the legislation was made public after the bill was revised, it remains "the most recent position taken by the Department of Justice," according to DOJ Senior Counsel John Nowacki.


Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Gee, lets think a minute! Why would the admin be against this?
Posted by: Pepper on Jul 26, 2005 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BECAUSE THEY ENGAGE REGULARLY IN WRONG DOING??? Do ya think? How come no one comes to that conclusion? This article, while good, does not ask that question: WHY IS THIS ADMINISTRATIONS OPPOSED TO THOSE PROTECTIONS FOR REPORTERS?.

I think the retribution against whistleblowers is at an increase if not at an all time high. Just look at those sources who wrote to the times, do you think they want to have a smear campaign lodged against them with the help of the press? (Just ask the Wilsons) That bill should contain something to make reporters accountable who abuse their position of trust with the public by acting as a "shill" for this administrations retribution actions against whistleblowers.

I think they are more likely to fear that than exposure for whistleblowing since both are bad. It makes it difficult for someone to be a true American and put out the truth of a matter. Here we go again, since we, in this country believe that economics drives everything, then each person must decide what is most important. Their jobs? Or their freedoms! In public service paid by the taxpayers I believe the latter is more important.

But we aren't there yet. I don't know if we will ever be there.
Maybe after its too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]