But can we count on politicians to give liberal journalist a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" when most on the Hill think of it as giving molestors the keys to the pre-school.

With regard to the idea that judges make determinations as to a person's bona fides with regard to their status as a journalist, I agree.

Which begs the question, why shouldn't judges be allowed to examine and critique the bona fides of the protected source, and whether the info revealed was in (good faith) in the public interest.

This law will protect the Judy Millers. That is silly. As your over-the-top commentor above suggested, it could also protect info revealed that is intentionally (that is, no good faith informative capacity, just an intent to do harm) bad for security.

I generally toss all security arguments aside, as they are purely self-serving (see State Secrets bullshit). At the same time, journalists who praise this type of thing often are simply quoting government mouthpieces who have their own agenda and will now hide behind this. Judy Miller deserved to get her ass put in jail for contempt of court, because she was protecting the government, not the citizens.

Judges should make the call, not some kind of one size fits all alternative.

Same is true for lawyer and doctor privileges. They are not absolute, they can and are voided in certain circumstances, and not according to statute, but according to judicial decisions. Same should apply to journalists. That said, I do agree that the privilege should be the starting point, and those seeking to pierce it should have the burden of explaining why it does not apply.

Of course, that is very close to the system we have now....

Uh, seems the over-the-top comment I mentioned either was in my imagination or is not longer there. I wasn't referencing nuttylittlenutnut.

More likely all you will do is open a Pandora's box of Judy Miller's working for Big Media owned by Big Oil, Big Auto, and Big Business.

I didn't realize there was such a problem in America that journalists were being stifled from doing work.

In fact, I could have swore it was the other way around...we have to far too few real journalists doing investigative work, and far more PR and propagandists spinning the corporate line.

Where's the big problem?

Where's all the journalists in jail?

Is anyone really suggesting that the LACK or SCARCITY of real journalism in America is because we put journalists in jail, that they are afraid to write stories, that sources are afraid to tell them stuff?

I've seen no evidence of that.

The real story is that the LACK and SCARCITY of real journalism and the growing preponderance of PR and propaganda has everything to do with the centralization of media ownership (or at least the most to do with that, there are obviously other social and cultural factors).

We are chasing a phantom problem, as there is no organized intimidation of journalists or journalism in America, no problem of journalists rotting in jail and not being able to tell stories, at least as far as a Shield Law would have any relevance.

The real problem is elsewhere, in concentration of and collusion by ownership, and this shield law is just a sucker's bet.

I just don't see why it's a big priority right now because Judy Miller went to jail, and I saw no abuse in that whole process of compelling her to reveal her treacherous, slanderous, and seditious sources.

Her's were a potent brew of liars, deceivers and betrayers, and that brew poisoned the public trust.

None of that would have seen the light of day with a shield law written by corporate lobbyists, as I'm sure this inevitably and largely is.

Where's the evidence of the actual abuse that has caused this federal shield law?

Is there really a climate of fear and intimidation?

Is there really a problem?

At least as far as these bill writers would have us believe is solved by this bill?

Atrios is right...an expanded, strengthened, indisputable, iron-clad whistleblower bill should have been passed before, alongside, or part and parcel with any shield law.

This is your "progressive" government at work.

***

By the way, arguing that we should enforce existing whistleblower laws better isn't really an argument at all, since there is no advocacy for changing the conditions by which the prior laws were ignored, belittled, or misapplied, therefore allowing for these conditions to continue with just "we ought to do better".

If we've learned anything in this country over the past few centuries, it's that we know that's not enough.

In theory, and considered on its own merits, a shield law would be terrific.

The world and politics don't work that way.

As long as such a statute does not provide for protection of those engaged in criminal activity -- such as, let's say, purposely disclosing the identity of a federal covert operative working on national security issues for the purpose of intimidating both her whistleblower husband and her increasingly disaffected colleagues (not that such a thing would ever happen under this enlightened, noble and law-abiding administration, but you never know, do you?) -- I'm not going to stand in opposition to the law's enactment.

But, let's please lose the income qualifications, OK? It's not the privileged media elite that needs protecting, but the everyday journalist on the ground, walking the beat and working the story.

One more group to join minorities, religion,women and others placed beyond criticism.

Assuming that journalists and bloggers are part of the "press" referenced in the First Amendment speech clauses, isn't it discriminatory to give them greater protection than the speech rights of others? In order words, does the First Amendment provide greater speech rights to the "press" than the rest of us?

We need whistleblower protection rather than a journalism shield statute because we don't, or shouldn't, want to protect all anonymous sources--only those who are blowing the whistle on corruption or illegality. When an administration anonymous source outs a CIA agent for political gain, for example--the journalists to whom that was leaked ought not to be able to maintian source confidentiality.

Earth to Jim. Where have you been the last seven years. Don't you get it. The bush admin. has been moving towards a stalinist style of dissent squashing and anything that protects anybody from that has got to be good.

Let me refine Rea's point.

There is a big difference between authorized and unauthorized leaks. Authorized leaks deserve no protection. The authorized leaker is not worried about losing their job or going to jail; the leaker only wants to avoid responsibility for the consequences of doing their job, which is usually spreading disinformation. We don't want to encourage lying.

It is the unauthorized leaker who needs protection. It is fairly easy to distinguish the two: usually without even inquiries into the leaker's identity. If the information embarrasses the administration, it is unauthorized. If the information furthers the goals of the administration, it is authorized.

Look, the reason we shield journalists is that it is in the public interest to have wrongdoers outed. Only by telling something to a reporter who promises not to reveal the source's identity is how wrongdoing becomes public.

That should be the test whether to require someone to testify -- is it in the public interest to protect the identity of the reporter's source?

During the Valerie Plame mess, I never had any sympathy for reporters's claims their promises to their sources trumped the public interest in finding out who leaked her identity.

The case was nothing more than the White House being willing to dmaage US national security by leaking her name as a way to smear one of its political enemies.

Sorry, but there's no public interest in protecting those sources. To the contrary, it's in our interest that they be outed and prosecuted.

As for mobsters claiming to be reporters as a way to get out of testifying, I agree that it shouldn't be too hard to determine whether the public has an interest in seeign them protect their "sources" or not.

But, yeah, let's do a better job of protecting whistleblowers who come forward so we don't have to rely on reporters writing about them to ensure they don't get punished.

If you can't define who it is that is to be protected by a law, they it probably shouldn't be a law.

The very fact that we don't all agree on what a journalist is a good sign that it's a bad law.

I agree that defining "journalist" as someone who makes a sufficient amount of money doing journalism is a lousy idea. This was almost certainly done as a way to prevent abuse (i.e., mob figures starting up blogs and then claiming they don't have to testify in court because they disseminate information),

Right. Because defining it by the amount of money just makes that only work if the mob figure does the blog as a commercial enterprise and launders enough money through it to qualify as a Real Journalist™.

Somehow, I don't see any abuse being prevented here, just special privileges for the elite while citizen-journalists are treated as second class.

Kevin: When reporters get leaks from anonymous sources, those sources don't want to know that they'll be "protected." They want to know that they won't be revealed.

Liars and defamers never want to have their names revealed; they do not want accountability and neither do the reporters who rely upon them, make a living promoting their lies, and give them protection.

BTW, an "anonymous" source cannot be revealed because the reporter does not know the identity of the anonymous source: Deep Throat was an anonymous source.

A confidential source is someone who doesn't want their identity to be disclosed, even though the reporter knows who the source is.

If you've given the reporter your name or the reporter knows your identity, then you are not anonymous.

gkxqc dukm rdkps jykg abtv gevi oapdzjs