Shielding Reporters

Maybe its just my contrarian nature but I'm quite ambivalent about the prospects of increasing the protection of reporters against having to reveal confidential sources in criminal investigations or court proceedings. (See the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's editorial on the subject: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Getting the facts) A big problem I have is that the debate on the subject is far from fairly presented by the media. In fact I've never seen a debate on the subject at all, as the word "debate" would indicate that someone with an opposing viewpoint would be included. Recently on the Lou Dobb's program on CNN, Lou and a couple of other reporters had a round table discussion and they agreed that a new shield law for themselves and their collegues was vital. Gee, how helpful.

It isn't that in principle I'm even against the use of Shield laws, it's the fact that as a debate of public policy the issue is not fairly presented. What the press is asking for is, in effect, a special privilege or right not enjoyed by any other citizens. Before anything of the sort is granted a more up-front and multi-sided debate is needed. The following points are ones that I feel must be included for a proper discussion of any Shield Law:

1) The "Press" is not simply an actor working for the public good, as they always like to portray themselves, but also a vested interest looking after their own well-being.

2) The "Government" is not simply an alien force in society, but is also an expression of the public at large. Therefore it is possible that in opposing the government the press is also opposing "the people" and the public good.

3) The public good might very well demand that Shield laws should not give reporters the right to engage in criminal activity with impunity.

This third point is the toughest for reporters to accept. As the Post notes:

The last time the court addressed the issue, in 1972, it found that reporters do not have a First Amendment privilege to refuse to appear before a grand jury if they have direct information about a crime. But that opinion was murky.

You can call me cynical but I wonder if the word "murky" as used in that sentence doesn't really mean "something we the Press don't like."