In this article written by Leann Frola it addresses the issue of the establishment of a shield law for protection of journalist and their sources in regards to federal cases. The Washington Post stated that the Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed consideration of the shield legislation after the Justice Department raised objections. In order for there to be a provision of the bill the department of justice would have to convince the judge that it would be a leak in national security information that would hurt the government more than helping the public. ABC's Sam Donaldson said, "balancing national security and the publics right to know would be tricky. Also another problem with the bill would be deciding who would be protected by it. In the past numerous journalists have been jailed for disclosing their sources. On Thursday, a federal judge sentenced San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada to 18 months in jail. The reporters had refused to reveal who leaked to them secret grand jury testimony alleging steroid abuse by top athletes. News analyst Robert Cokie said, "Confidential sources are crucial for reporting sensitive stories that may put a source's career at risk."
I feel that there should be a shield law when it comes to sources of federal cases. I am looking out for the best interest of the source. If the sources got leaked in high profile cases it would not only put these peoples careers at risk but possibly their lives as well. Yes, it is the journalists job to state their sources so that the public can see that they are credible. However, I feel that when it comes to jeopardizing a persons life all for the sake of a source, I do not feel that it is necessary and that journalists should be able to provide information about the source with out leaking the name in cases such as these.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe a shield law is not realistic due to the legal system we have in place. Our system is directly dependent on evidence and the analysis of that evidence. By placing a shield of protection over reporters, allowing them to disclose their sources, often times people would not be held responsible for their actions.
It is important for journalists to have some sources remain anonymous in field reporting however when the judicial system is challenged or hindered by this animosity a change is necessary. We need to protect our journalists as a nation, however the protection of journalists cannot overshadow national security or the immediate safety of many people.
Journalists should not be bullied into a corner to get sources out of them. Unless there is a case where the source that the reporter is hiding, is a threat to national security but I think that the reporter would never compromise his or her ethical standards to put themselves in that position.
Post a Comment