President Barack Obama was described in a Tuesday Seattle Times editorial as “the worst modern president for press freedom.” We concur with that assessment.
The Times cited not only “an unprecedented six criminal cases (filed by the administration) against whistle-blowers” but also the Justice Department’s seizure of two months of Associated Press telephone records.
Now is the time for Congress to do what it almost did four years ago and what Washington state did six years ago: Pass a media shield law. More than 40 states have laws that protect reporters from prosecution for refusing to provide authorities with the names of confidential sources. President Obama has asked Congress to reconsider a federal shield law, which is commendable, although such a move by the president also carries the imprint of trying to backfill for the DOJ’s transgressions.
It’s important to realize that a shield law protects more than just reporters; it also guards the public’s right to know. That’s why in 2007, Washington’s Democratic governor and Republican attorney general strongly supported the state’s media shield law, which passed by overwhelming margins in both legislative chambers. A spokesman for Rob McKenna, state attorney general at the time, said he “believes reporter shield laws protect whistle-blowers by guaranteeing confidentiality. Without this protection, those who fear for their livelihoods would be too discouraged to speak up on matters that are important to the public.” Such a threat roams menacingly in Washington, D.C.
As The Columbian editorialized in 2007, “Reporters need the same exemption from testifying in court that is given spouses, attorneys, clergy and police officers. Let whistles be blown, and let the sun shine bright enough to enlighten the public.” That same protection must be extended at the federal level.
Fortunately, both liberal and conservative members of Congress have supported such a measure. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has said he will be a chief co-sponsor and recently told reporters as he laughed: “As much as I hate y’all, I think you should do your jobs. You should be able to be the annoyance you are.” A federal media shield law was rejected by the Senate in 2009.
As for the ongoing DOJ scandal regarding the seizure of AP telephone records, the Times editorial correctly described the attack on freedom of the press as “a breathtaking intrusion into the work of investigative journalism.” The newspaper asked: “Who will call a reporter with a sensitive tip if a warrantless DOJ subpoena lurks in the background?”
The late Norm Maleng was King County prosecutor in 2005 when he explained: “Reporters must be able to protect their sources on sensitive stories or risk only reporting on issues that are safe and noncontroversial. We rely on reporters as watchdogs for government and business.”
How much DOJ officials or Obama will suffer for trying to muzzle the watchdogs remains to be seen. But this much is certain: Congress can — and should — lift the veil of fear for whistle-blowers and the press by passing a strong federal shield law.
