From the column: Update on federal shield law for reporters

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: May 17, 2008

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.