Chihak : Protection for watchdogs keeps gov't on leash
- Most Commented Stories Today
- Most E-mailed Stories Today
Do journalists need special protection from government officials who want to stop information leaks or find out about confidential news sources?
Yes! say many people in the newspaper industry.
Why? you ask. Why should journalists get special treatment?
For starters, the media already get special treatment, in the U.S. Constitution.
The Founding Fathers accorded the media that special treatment to provide a balance between the people and the powerful.
"Whenever people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government," Thomas Jefferson said.
We Americans aren't as well-informed these days as we ought to be, and certainly some of that is because of the shortcomings of the news media.
But it also is clearly attributable to governmental officials who insist on secrecy for much of what they do and, further, that those who breach the secrecy, in government and the media, be punished for doing so.
It is why the Newspaper Association of America is supporting a federal "shield law" to protect journalists from governmental reprisals over their work.
The legislation, perhaps curiously, has clear bipartisan support in Congress.
The Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives last month passed H.R. 2102, the "Free Flow of Information Act," to protect journalists. The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering similar legislation, S. 1267, and a compromise is in the works, S. 2035. The Senate committee is scheduled to work on the bills Thursday.
Why is this needed?
"Over the last few years, more than 40 reporters and media organizations have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes and their work product in criminal and civil cases in federal court," newspaper association President John Sturm said in a letter to newspaper publishers this week.
The push to protect journalists comes in the face of a multiplicity of governmental attempts to scuttle the principles of the First Amendment's free press right.
Among those offering support:
• In the Senate, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are sponsoring the compromise legislation. Longtime shield-law advocates Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., proposed the original Senate version.
• In the House, the legislation has the support of Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; Howard Coble, R-N.C.; John A. Yarmuth, D-Ky.; and Greg Walden, R-Ore.
Members of Arizona's congressional delegation haven't said much about it, directly. But words and actions linked to the First Amendment and open government may reveal where they stand.
Tony Mauro of the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn., reported that Republican Sen. John McCain told radio talker Don Imus last year regarding free speech vs. campaign finance limits: "I would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, 'First Amendment rights' are being respected (than a government) that has become corrupt."
Would he also rather have a "clean government" than one that is under watch from journalists exercising their, quote, First Amendment rights?
The answer comes from places such as Cuba, China and Venezuela, where access to a free press is scant and thus the governments are corrupt.
It's why, as the Founding Fathers so appropriately foresaw, we need special protection for journalists and the work they do.
Reach Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com.
When it all said and done, more assaults have taken place against our Constitution during this administration than any other time in recent history. So whether it is from a perspective of a Business such as a newspaper, or the perspective of a citizen who wants a library book, and even now a legitimate Company who does business overseas, all of our liberties are under assault; so then, aren't we fighting zealotry at home as abroad.
It is particulary striking to me the lack of interest in the FISA legislation. This is the first time in our nations history that an adminstration has abridged our original concept of the BILL OF RIGHTS. It is that to which I was referring.
bq. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...""
while we all may have free speech in writing, you just do not have that right to put it any newspaper..., unless of course you are the editor !!
My column of Sept. 8, 2007 addressed the very issue to which you are referring:
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/62381.php
Michael A. Chihak