[Readers: Agree or Disagree?? Talk back under the comments section.]
For years, journalists have been fighting for protection of their anonymous sources, and Congress has yet to officially support them.
But that time may come to an end in a few short weeks.
“The Free Flow of Information Act” (S. 2035) - aka the Federal Shield Law - is scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor before the August recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells the Society of Professional Journalists.
Every state, except Wyoming, has its own shield law — but there is still no national law in the books. So, last week, SPJ members were on Capitol Hill lobbying Congress for support of a shield law - which is far from ensuring passage.
Only 18 senators (out of 100) have signed on to the Federal Shield Law. For the House version (H.R. 2102), there are only 71 congressmen signed on, out of 435.
That means just 16 percent of our national legislators have declared formal support for protection of journalists’ anonymous sources!!
In May, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) wrote a column for The Washington Post, articulating why this bill is so vital to America:
“If we are to have a free press, it is necessary to protect the relationship between journalists and trusted sources to whom journalists have promised confidentiality … The lack of a federal standard undermines state shield laws and the public interest embodied in those laws.“
As Specter notes, the bill doesn’t make journalists “above the law” or allow them to withhold information that affects national security. But it would protect journalists from naming their anonymous sources in general cases.
While anonymous sources are often avoided - and for good reason - there is still a place for them in modern journalism, and to not have them at all would be devastating to the freedom of the press and American democracy.
Some of the most defining political stories of 20th century American government revolved around anonymous sources. When used correctly, these sources have divulged undisclosed information on American warfare and led to the downfall of a president, such as what happened in the investigative stories of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
“Sources almost always have an agenda when they speak up, but sometimes they have information of vital interest to the general public and much to lose if they’re caught passing it along. If journalists can’t protect their sources’ identities, you will be much less informed about the world,” writes past SPJ President Christine Tatum.
“Lately, federal prosecutors have dragged too many journalists into court, flaunting subpoenas for notes, work product and recollections of private conversations. The feds’ arrogant insistence that journalists should be compelled to act as arms of law enforcement undermines free speech, a free press and an informed citizenry,” she said.
But on the other side of the issue, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has spoken out in opposition against a federal shield law:
“The heavy evidentiary burden the bill would impose on prosecutors seeking information from reporters will impede investigations… Reporters serve a vitally important function in our democratic society, but they are not above the law. This legislation would change that — with grave consequences for national security and law enforcement.“
Journalists are not the judge or the jury. We find the facts and disseminate them to the public through various presentations.
It is up to law enforcement officials to find the evidence that is used in courtrooms — and to take that evidence out of a reporter’s notebook (while breaching the trust between a reporter and anonymous source) is simply lazy.

Without the First Amendment and without journalists, Americans would be uninformed and our democratic government would go unchecked and unaccounted for.
Journalists should not be above the law, but they should be afforded some degree of legal protection when they must expose the truth of those who wish to keep it quiet.
If the government continues to lock up journalists who refuse to name sources, America’s free press could tumble down a horrible spiral until our rights are no better than those given to journalists in totalitarian dictatorships, where propaganda replaces truth.
~ Kristen M. Daum, City Desk Intern at The Oklahoman.