THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES passed a bill for a federal shield law for journalists yesterday. That means that journalists would have the right to keep sources confidential if necessary. "I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press," said Indiana Representative Mike Pence, who cosponsored the bill with Virginia Representative Rick Boucher. "This is not about protecting reporters; it's about protecting the public's right to know."
The White House may veto the bill. Yesterday, administration officials said the bill could "severely frustrate -- and in some cases completely eviscerate -- the federal government's ability to investigate acts of terrorism and other threats to national security."
Would this law (if passed) give journalists too much freedom? We can barely believe the agenda-driven news that we receive now, right? If a story or reporter says, "Sources tell us ..." will you trust the information?
Or is this law needed to ensure that our government behaves properly?
11 comments:
This was the first story I read in the newspaper this morning and I couldn't believe it. The bill basically states that journalists have the right to keep their sources confidential unless for reasons of national security/national threat. This bill is needed to ensure a free and efficiant press. If the White House vetos this bill, there is going to be some serious backlash because it was passed in the House by a vote of 398-21.
After reading the information my first thought was, "This is improving journalism and the line of 'The act, he said, "is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know."' really brought home what the class has been talking about with journalists now-a-days aren't just people who have bachelors in journalism from universities. Now hopefully journalists will go deeper into issues with sources. Even though I'm pretty sure any crafty White House staffer could label a source's information a threat to national security but the Surpreme Courts would have to act and I guess that'll show how much freedom journalists can have.
I think this is exactly the kind of law that needs to be passed for the public to have access what is going on in the world. Journalists should be encouraged to dig deeper, and expose what is going on behind the scenes. I am just worried about their definition to terrorism. What constitutes terrorism, or a threat to national security? There are people held by the US governement in secret prisons all over the world, because they are considered possible terrorists. They don't have the right to a trial. Our governement certainly takes away people's rights in the name of national security.
As an aspiring journalist, I feel like by complying with this bill, I wouldn't be giving my readers the whole truth. As a reader, I'd feel more distrust of what I read. I need to know the facts; who said what and where it came from, and I think I have a right to that truth.
There are several views on this, you may want to review what Rob Port from Congoo News says about the shield law:
http://www.congoo.com/user/FullComment?comid=190&Category_ID=-1&Channel_ID=64&Channel=Politics/Law
In order for this bill to actually work out, certian compromises and stipulations must be met. While it is, of course, a huge advancement for both journalists and the American public that this bill has been proposed. However, just as we must ensure that too much power does not fall exclusively into the hands of the government, me must be sure that the power of journalists will also be kept in check.
I read "Sources say..." frequently already, so I am not particularly surprised. I think it is fine to keep sources confidential because isn't our number 1 job to get information to the public, right? Far too often, people have fantastic information but want it "off the record" because they do not want to be identified. If people don't trust what they read because source are not named, then they should be active citizens and research it themselves if they are going to take it too much to heart. What a journalist has to say it more important than who said it, in my opinion.
Disclaimer** This only applies when it is necessary to keep a source confidential. If the article is on straight facts, data, or hard news, a Journalist SHOULD name sources, of course. Otherwise, it's just laziness.
I think this is a good thing, especially to protect journalists from being incarcerated for sticking to their principles of not revealing confidential sources. It would definitely make me feel safer.
On the other hand, it could definitely be abused if some journalists decide to be lazy.
I also think this law could possibly help journalists to get better quotes from sources, since then the sources will know that they will remain confidential and that the journalist can't be threatened (in most circumstances) to give up their identities.
Kinda cuz of all the positive reviews and mostly because I genuinely feel this way, I gotta say this bill is a definite no. How can you present facts or have them checked when your sources are confidential? Wouldn't this lead to more cases like Glass with fictional stories? And how important is it really for someone to be confidential anyway? Nine times outta ten it doesn't matter. But this bill would let a journalist make up a quote to make the story better and attribute it to confidential sources that could never be checked.
Most importantly, you can't hide where you get your information from any other time. Research papers for the government, heck even in middle school you had to cite your sources. Why can journalists get away with vagaries where others can't?
i find myself compelled by both sides.
If a reporter keeps their sources anonymous, how do we know if that information or source is accurate? Would the government bear down on a reporter to find out who sources are when they have no knowledge whether or not the information presented has any real value in the first place?
So while reporters are celebrating, does this actually help provide the public with more accurate info?
Justin Horn
this just gives the public all the more reason to distrust the press
Post a Comment