Protecting reporters and talk radio

It's been an uphill battle for several years now, but another effort is being made by champions of a free press to pass a federal shield law, which would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources.

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 was introduced this past week by Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Rick Boucher, D-Va. The 2008 version of this bill passed the House 382-21 but never came up for a vote in the Senate. Even if it passed, it faced a threatened veto from President Bush, whose Justice Department wanted to be able to go fishing for information in the journalism pond -- especially if it resulted in news sources drying up.

A solid majority of states already have a shield law, and Nevada has one of the strongest since the Review-Journal won a state Supreme Court case reaffirming the finality or force of the original law. But state laws don't apply in federal court.

The bill has a number of caveats that would still allow federal prosecutors and others to delve into journalists' sources under certain circumstances, such as national security. It also contains a catch-all balancing test clause that would require disclosure of sources if a compelling public interest outweighs the reasons for shielding sources.

The law also defines who is covered as a journalist:"a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain ... "

That might exclude a couple of major metropolitan newspapers right now.

In introducing the bill, Pence, a former conservative talk radio host, said, "As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe that the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. The Free Flow of Information Act would provide a qualified privilege to journalists to shield confidential sources from disclosure except in certain situations such as when our national security is at stake. Ensuring that reporters can keep sources confidential is vital to ensuring the free flow of information to the public."

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, President Obama supports a federal shield law, and his attorney general, Eric Holder, said during his confirmation hearing he supported such a measure, though he would talk to Justice Department attorneys who have national security concerns.

Last year all three Nevada representatives voted for the bill and Sen. Harry Reid said he'd try to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote, but it got back-burnered by more pressing issues. A spokesman for Nevada's newest delegate, Dina Titus, said she, too, supports it.

-- -- --

On another journalistic front, it appears certain Democratic operatives have taken to poking a stick at the right-wing radio gabsters just to watch them bark.

On one of the last surviving liberal radio talk shows recently, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told host Bill Press that she would hold congressional hearings on the unfairness and one-sidedness of talk radio and consider bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Though she has since backed off the threat, it was all the buzz among the perceived targets of said hearings. Sean Hannity reportedly blurted out: "You want this microphone? Come and get it!"

But Bill Press insists, "There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere."

Never mind that there are liberal newspapers, liberal television networks, liberal bloggers, liberal books and liberal universities. That's irrelevant. That darned talk radio drives them nuts.

They think the marketplace of ideas is not working because in one tiny niche, one side is winning.

I thought that was the point of Milton's "Areopagitica" -- in a fair fight, truth wins out over falsehood. In Press' world, the battle never ends. There is no victor. There is not right or wrong, just the back-and-forth bickering without resolution.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes on the role of the press and access to public information. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell.