Bill aims to stifle source revealing

In light of recent high-profile cases involving Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine, a bi-partisan effort exists in Congress to pass into law proposed bills that would shield journalists from having to reveal their sources to federal authorities, and media experts at The University of Tennessee support the new legislation.

“I would like to see a federal shield law,” Dwight L. Teeter Jr., professor in the school of journalism and electronic media, said. “The real crux here ... is when you ask a journalist to reveal confidential sources, you’re asking a lot.”

Both Miller and Cooper have been cited for contempt of court for refusing to reveal the identities of their confidential sources to a federal grand jury in the investigation of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame’s identity as Valerie Wilson was disclosed to the two, but actually reported in a news article by another journalist, Robert Novak. The charge carries with it the possibility of jail-time.

The danger, Teeter explained, is that in revealing a journalist’s sources, his or her credibility is shot.

“Who will talk to you again,” he demanded. “If a journalist is used as an arm of the government for collecting information, who’s going to talk to you again?”

Others in the field agree with Teeter’s assessment of the situation.

“It’s hard for me to imagine that a journalist must reveal his or her news sources in the United States,” James Crook, interim director and professor in the school of journalism and electronic media, said. “What we all worry about is that [reporters] will be less aggressive, less determined. If a journalist is afraid of going to jail for keeping sources confidential, the fear is that vital news pertaining to the public interest will go unreported, or will be reported too late.”

The precedent being cited in Miller’s case is Branzburg v. Hayes, Teeter explained. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect journalists against being compelled to testify and reveal the identities of their sources before grand juries. However, it is limited to cases where the information sought after is pertinent to the investigation underway.

“This is a really heavy handed use of the Branzburg case,” Teeter said. “Judith Miller is being harassed for gathering information on a story she even didn’t write. I don’t see that she did anything wrong.

Both she and Mr. Cooper were doing what they were supposed to be doing as journalists; they were gathering information.”

The professors agree that the use of confidential sources is potentially dangerous and encourage reporters to avoid using them unless it is absolutely necessary.

“Stay on the record as much as possible,” Teeter advised. “You can’t cut corners ... legal liability and credibility loss can result from sloppy reporting.”

“If we do get a federal shield law, of course it can’t be absolute,” Teeter conceded. “Exceptions should be made in cases that threaten national security or place lives in danger.”

Good journalists will continue to do what they ought to do, and “if they go to jail, they go to jail,” Teeter said.

The federal shield laws being proposed in Congress state that journalists may be subpoenaed by federal authorities to testify before a federal grand jury and divulge the identities of sources only when the journalist is the sole source possessing the required information. Currently, there is no federal law that grants such provisions, but two different drafts of The Free Flow of Information Act of 2005 are circulating in the House and Senate.

There are currently 31 states, including Tennessee, that also have state shield laws or other legislation to protect journalists, which provide the same kinds of provisions as their proposed federal counterparts, though they are relevant only on a state level.

“State shield laws prevent “fishing expeditions” by authorities, Teeter said. “Shield laws are a very useful protection of the press.”