From the column: Update on federal shield law for reporters

By Jennifer J. Foster

You may remember my column last summer about legislation that would create a federal shield law for reporters. If you missed it, you can read it here.

The legislation seems to have stalled in the Senate. It’s unclear whether that is due to the henny-penny hand-wringing and aggressive lobbying efforts undertaken by the Bush Administration to derail the bill.

But the legislation has found friends in an unusual cast of characters who have joined together for its passage: First Amendment advocates, like reporters’ groups, find themselves on the same team as—GASP!—conservative Republicans?!

As it turns out, there are a few conservatives who aren’t fixated on Fox News Channel after all.

This New York Times story examines the unlikely-bedfellows nature of the coalition that has emerged to support the shield.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said that while the coalition seems surprising at first, perhaps it shouldn’t be.

“Classic conservatives recognize that the media plays a role in overseeing what the government is up to,” she said.

The bill passed the House last year with a veto-proof 398-21 vote.

Did you catch that? The vote was 398-21.

(Caution: Sarcasm ahead.)

Surely there are more than 21 congressmen concerned about national security! And terrorism! And not tipping off the bad guys that we’re on to them!

(End sarcasm)

One Republican senator summed up the Bush Administration’s opposition this way:

“I’ve been around a while, and I’ve never seen such an avalanche of letters coordinated in such an unrealistic, emotional, unwarranted attack on a piece of legislation,” said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and supporter of the shield law.

So, passage should be a done deal, right?

Um, no.

The bill’s overwhelming passage in the House—and countless editorials in support of it—haven’t seemed to help it find its way on to the Senate calendar.

“It is on our to-do list, and we hope to get to it as soon as we can,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

Maybe Reid could find the time to “get to it” if he was facing—oh, I don’t know—say, fines of $5,000 a day?

Here are some other links on this issue:

The Society of Professional Journalists: SPJ’s “Struggling to Report” site is home base for the campaign to pass the shield. Here, among tons of other things, journalists and legal eagles alike have their say about why a shield law is necessary. If you only have time to check out one of these links, make it this one.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: RCFP’s “Shields and subpoenas” page is a good resource for reporters who need practical information about shield laws and why they’re needed.

From the First Amendment Center, a history of the reporter’s privilege as it has evolved through state courts. If anything, this article illustrates the patchwork nature of the privilege and why it must be addressed at the federal level.

And, in the interest of fairness:

The U.S. Department of Justice Media Shield page, where you can read all sorts of letters in opposition to the shield (surprise! They’re all from government officials!); and

Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s own op-ed opposing the shield.

Just be careful when you’re reading those last two links. You know, since the sky is falling and all.

Column conclusion

By Jennifer J. Foster

Somewhere between my computer and the Opelika-Auburn News printing press, the last line of my column was lost to today’s print edition. Here is the column in its entirety.

I knew that if I waited long enough, one of the presidential candidates would deliver an idea that would really fire me up.

On Thursday, it finally happened.

In a speech about his vision for the country, GOP nominee-to-be Sen. John McCain rattled off a laundry list of policy benchmarks he hopes to meet by the end of his first term.

McCain also promised to “set a new standard for transparency and accountability” with “weekly press conferences” meant to “regularly brief the American people on the progress … our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered.”

And then there was this:

“I’ll ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons,” McCain said.

Are you kidding me? An American equivalent of Prime Minister’s Questions?

Is this campaign season, or Christmas???

Prime Minister’s Questions is the gold standard for political junkies. It’s a weekly grilling to which the British Prime Minister subjects himself (or herself, as it were) in the name of being accessible to all citizens through their representatives.

Yes, the British gave us American Idol … and Simon Cowell. But PMQ is a different – a better – kind of reality show.

According to 10 Downing Street’s web site, PMQ began in 1961 with Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. His biography says Macmillan “expected his tenure to be short-lived.

“Instead, he had considerable success in restoring both party and national morale and confidence,” the bio reads.

Was it coincidence that Macmillan pioneered PMQ, with the idea of giving MPs (members of Parliament) from all parties an opportunity to question the prime minister on any subject?

I don’t think so.

Over the years, PMQ has become a news item all its own. When quick-witted Tony Blair was in the arena, the Wednesday morning rows became something of a cult phenomenon. But as the increasingly raucous rounds of questions delivered by boisterous MPs have drawn international attention to PMQ, it has also attracted domestic scorn.

So McCain’s proposal understandably drew curious consideration from British media. Thus, this staid – and characteristically British – assessment:

“The weekly half hour PMQ sessions in the Commons are often rowdy affairs with party leaders trading insults spurred on by baying MPs,” the BBC remarked. “But they allow the main opposition party leaders to put the prime minister on the spot on a subject of their choice and backbench MPs to raise issues on behalf of constituents.”

If you’ve ever seen PMQ, you know that navigating the experience requires the best political skills a politician can muster. Thirty minutes is a lifetime when you’re faced with grumpy, confrontational opposition-party backbenchers with carte blanche to come after you.

But it serves a notable purpose in British politics: Prime ministers are never more than six days away from having to account for their decisions – when Parliament is in session, at least.

One has to wonder how American history would be different if our president came before the citizens’ representatives every week – and how those representatives’ own actions would change, knowing the president is just waiting to hit back.

An American president, slugging it out, toe-to-toe with Congress every week?

Now that’s what I call a campaign promise!

On the blog this weekend: Links to all kinds of PMQ info, an update on the federal shield law for reporters and disturbing news from the Supreme Court.