Senate Panel Hears Debate Over Shielding Media Sources "One person's whistle-blower is another person's slander monger.'' - Lee Levine, a media lawyer
WASHINGTON -- Advocates for a federal shield law that would protect journalists from having to disclose confidential sources made their case today before the Senate Judiciary Committee."The absence of federal legislation has created extraordinary chaos, limiting the public's access to important information that is so necessary in a democratic society," said Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of Time Inc., who recently decided to turn over confidential documents to the special prosecutor investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
Pearlstine gave the court the documents after a two-year legal battle.
"We fought all the way to the Supreme Court," he said, "and we lost."
Calling it "the toughest decision of my career," Pearlstine said that a shield law would have protected Time if the corporation had elected not to turn over the documents.
The Justice Department, which opposes a federal shield law, did not send a representative to the hearing. Deputy Atty. Gen. James Comey, who supplied testimony to the committee, sent word this morning that he would have to miss the hearing because he was testifying before a House panel on the Patriotic Act.
In his written testimony, Comey objected to the shield law because in national security emergencies, prosecutors might need information about journalists' sources. He also questioned the proposed legislation's definition of a journalist, which he suggested was so broad it would protect corporate affiliates and even publishers of sales catalogs.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), citing Comey's "very strong allegations," said she too was concerned about giving reporters a privilege so "extraordinarily broad" that national security could be compromised.
Citing California's shield law — some 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted protections for journalists — she advocated a narrower approach than the one proposed by the bill's sponsors, tempered by a balancing act between the public good served by confidentiality for sources and the public need to prosecute illegal behavior.
"Do you really have to reveal Mrs. Wilson's name?" she asked, referring to Plame by her married name.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would press the Justice Department to send a witness to the next hearing. He acknowledged after today's hearing that chances of congressional action this year were unlikely.
I imagine Sen. Specter is scratching his head at the complexity of this case and saying to himself "I need more time to think this through."
There is certainly much food for thought and great cause for caution.
This is a very important debate, to my mind, and not for the most obvious reasons (more on this later). Try to catch a rerun of the Senate hearing on C-Span if you missed it.
Resources:
Justice Dept. Criticizes Media Shield Bill
Feds: Media Shield Bill Bad Public Policy
See transcripts of individual testimonies at the Senate Judiciary Committee website.
A blogger poses a compelling question, not addressed in the hearings: William Safire is Scared - Is he a Journalist or an Agent of Influence? I have the same question about Judith Miller.
Posted by Diana at July 21, 2005 07:17 AM