Shield law compromise is better than nothing

After the White House earlier scuttled a proposed reporters’ shield law by demanding the final say should lie with the executive branch, it looks like a compromise has been reached that most can accept as better than the status quo of jailing reporters for refusing to reveal sources.

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, was quoted as saying, “This is a huge deal, but it’s not a done deal, and quite honestly, until all of the media coalition members sign off on it, it’s not a deal.”

Under the compromise reached between the White House and Senate Democrats, judges would be the final arbiter in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases the party seeking information from a reporter would bear the burden of proof. In criminal cases the reporter would have to prove that the public interest in free flow of information out weighs the needs of prosecutors for the information.

A judge would not be able to block a reporter subpoena if prosecutors show a terrorist attack could be prevented or there would be significant harm to national security. How strong that evidence might have to be remains to be seen.

In an editorial today, The New York Times gave a tentative endorsement.

Now it is up to Sen. Harry Reid to put the measure to a vote.