ag192305@ohio.edu
Kathy Kiely, a colleague of Tony Loci, the USA Today reporter who was court-ordered to reveal her confidential sources, said that one day journalists will either need a sugar daddy or a huge insurance policy to continue working in the field. Her comment came in the wake of the 2003 incident when Loci refused to turn over sources' identities in her coverage of a "person of interest" in the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. As a result, a judge ordered Loci pay up to $5,000 each day she continued to withhold her sources' names.
Doctors have legal rights to protect the privacy of their patients, and lawyers enjoy a similar privileged with their clients. According to a USA Today poll, 42 percent of Americans strongly agree that journalists should also have legal rights in place to protect the identities of their sources. Currently, 34 states have shield laws in place, but there is no federal legislation to protect journalists reporting national stories.From Watergate to Abu Ghraib, confidential sources have been relied on to break some of the nation's biggest news stories. According to the Society of Professional Journalists' president, Irwin Gratz, a federal shield law would "prevent the self-censorship and timidity sure to result if journalists come to believe that prosecutors will come after them on a regular basis and sources fear exposure when they least want it."
So why haven't these laws made it through the legislature? For some, it's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" excuse. Write/blogger Wendy Hoke contends shield laws would amend a system that already works the way it should.
I think Kiely had it right. It's hard to imagine a federal shield law going on the books any time soon, so perhaps journalists should be on the prowl for a willing financial backer to help them pay court fees and penalties – aka, a sugar daddy. In the meantime, SJP is leading the charge for a federal shield law.
No comments:
Post a Comment