Chron: now the journalist shield law is too weak
The Chronicle has ANOTHER editorial on the proposed journalist shield law, but this time the editorial board is unhappy because it says the bill has been "so weakened as to provide little or no protection."
In its present form, SB 604 does not keep prosecutors from trying to extract the names of confidential sources. Texas prosecutors who oppose a strong shield law do not seem to realize that without the confidential source, the prosecutors likely would remain as much in the dark as the public.
A majority of the Texas Senate cannot possibly favor the intimidation of whistle-blowers from going to the press with news that benefits the public. A strong shield law would protect not just journalists, but everyone.
The Chronicle appears to be arguing that prosecutors should support the shield law because prosecutors could learn information they might not otherwise be able to find, meaning (I think) that the Chronicle wants the journalist shield law to protect whistleblowers.
If the editorial board feels the current state whistleblower law isn't sufficient, then the Chronicle should encourage Austin to deal with that, instead of seeking new privileges for journalists.
In an attempt to bolster its case, the editorial uses (bizarrely) the Valerie Plame case as an example of prosecutorial intimidation of journalists:
In a federal case, two journalists agreed to listen to an administration official off the record. The official then revealed to them the name of a CIA agent. Now the journalists face 18 months in jail for honoring their agreement.
The media went on a hot and heavy frenzy for months demanding an investigation into which Bush Administration official leaked the (not-so-secret) name of a CIA employee. So, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft gave the media the investigation it wanted and when the investigation turned to journalists for source information, the media cried foul. James Taranto has a good summation of the New York Times' howling outrage and whimpering backtracking in the Plame hubbub. Here's his conclusion:
[...]Novak's sources asserted that Plame had recommended Wilson for the trip, which turned out to be true despite Wilson's denials. Thus it would appear that Novak's sources were the ones acting as whistleblowers, calling public attention to nepotism at the CIA.
In other words, it is increasingly likely that the entire Plame investigation--in which two journalists are being threatened with jail--is based on nothing. Yet as a Journal editorial noted last week, it may end up having a deleterious effect on press freedom. If Miller and Cooper appeal their case to the Supreme Court, the justices could "end up eliminating whatever hint of protection for sources remains" under existing law.
Such an outcome might have been avoided if journalists--notably including the Times' editorialists and columnists--had treated Wilson's accusations with responsibility and skepticism in the first place.
The media has all the protection it needs in the First Amendment; the media also has a responsibility to use that protection wisely and the Valerie Plame case is not a good example of why Texas needs a journalist shield law.
RELATED: Texas shield law for journalists rears its head again (blogHOUSTON), Give us an example of why journalists need shield law (blogHOUSTON)
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 04/11/05 02:22 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.