In a post today, Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters seems to have a bone to pick with the concept of journalist shield laws, while Congress works to try to craft a federal shield law. Presumably, this disgruntlement arises in part from the mess with leaks to the media in the Plame case.
He writes:
The entire exercise seems a strange effort for government, which has a legitimate interest in securing information, although perhaps never to the extent they classify material. Those who see wrongdoing have other mechanisms with which to get attention to the malfeasance, including directly contacting Congress with the information rather than the New York Times or Robert Novak. This shield law makes it easier for people to abuse both national security and the free press for their own political motivations.
I don’t think that anyone disputes the idea that the government has a right to protect sensitive information (assuming, of course, that the concept of “sensitive information” isn’t abused…but that’s a subject for another day).
However, the idea that “those who see wrongdoing [can contact] Congress with the information” seems overly naïve to me.
One of the reasons that the Founding Fathers sought to provide such strong protections to the press in the establishment of the U.S. was that they saw the press as a potentially powerful tool for the public to check the potential abuses of power corrupting those in government.
True, times have changed. The concept of “press” has evolved, and advancements in communications technology makes it far easier for citizens to be in contact with all levels of government. The press still isn’t perfect. However, it still has the potential to be a powerful spotlight to combat corruption in the dank, hallowed halls of government.
If an allegation of wrongdoing or scandal hits the front page of a newspaper, the evening news, or enough blogs, that allegation will usually have to be addressed (either directly, or via distraction) in public.
The same cannot necessarily be said when a concerned citizen quietly reports something to Congress. Quietly trying to resolve something “through channels” is always the preferred path to follow…but it is a path that is far too easy for those in power to bury.
That’s the reason that a strong case can be made for attempting to provide some protection for whistleblowers who contact journalists.
