Editorial: Demand the shield law NOW
Steve Safran September 24th, 2006
The two reporters who exposed the fraud that is Barry Bonds were heralded by President Bush as having performed a “public service.” And in America, when journalists perform a public service and do it better than public servants, we face jail time. The freedom of the press is under attack, and we need a shield law right now. Sure, it’s not exactly controversial for a journalist to write an editorial supporting a shield law. But hear me out.
A judge is demanding reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams reveal their sources. Fainaru-Wada and Williams exposed the dirty little secret of baseball – its rampant, shameless tacic endorsement of steroid use. Together, the San Francisco Chronicle reporters wrote “Game of Shadows,” which went on to become a best-seller.
In today’s Boston Globe, sports writer Gordon Edes (disclosure: he is engaged to a dear friend of mine) puts it very well:
“Many of us who make our living in sports journalism look upon Fainaru-Wada and Williams with great admiration for uncovering what appears to be rampant steroid use in baseball. Because there have been hundreds of deaths associated with steroid use in young athletes, the awareness brought forth by Fainaru-Wada and Williams has likely saved lives.
“And their reward? Prison time. Meanwhile, the man accused, Bonds, moves closer to breaking the most sacred record in baseball.”
As is the case with most of the Constitution, the First Amendment could not be clearer. And while Congress is not making a law abridging the freedom of speech or the press, a de facto law is in place and if Congress does not pass the federal shield bill now before them that’s as good as endorsing the legal status quo. Case law, after all, is nearly as good as legislation. Sometimes better.
This is America. We don’t jail journalists for writing unpopular things. We don’t even jail them for committing fraud. Stephen Glass, Janet Robinson, Jayson Blair – these are journalists who did terrible damage to our profession and to the public that trusted them. We don’t jail them. Instead, we choose to jail the best of the best – the journalists who do a better job of investigating scandal and crime than the people paid to do so can seem to accomplish.
Some disclosure now.
In 1999, I was subpoenaed after producing a report involving charges of rape against a New England Patriots player. My report strongly indicated the person making the charges was lying. Of course, I got a subpoena. It was through the work of a skillful lawyer that I managed to escape a court appearance – or , perhaps, the pokey.
And I now work with Charles Kravetz, VP of News at NECN, who is leading the effort for a shield law in Massachusetts. Charlie and I have had many discussions on bloggers and what constitutes “a journalist.” To me, journalism lies in the act and not the title.
Back to the editorial.
President Bush, who hailed the BALCO scandal reporters, does not support a federal shield law. And why would he? Reporters have been nothing but a pain in the ass for the president. (Yet another disclosure: I am a Libertarian who initially supported President Bush.) Journalists have finally come to their sense and started questioning the party line. We did a lousy job in the Iraq War’s early months. We fell for it. Now we’re at least looking into the government’s claims. Sometimes the claims are correct. Sometimes they’re bull. That’s what we do.
This is not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. The press went after President Clinton every day of his presidency. Ditto Jimmy Carter. The job of a good press is to question power. That doesn’t mean to be negative. It means simply questioning, investigating and reporting.
In the Valerie Plame case (and look who turned out to be at blame for that), who faced jail time? The person who outed a CIA agent? No. The government officials who stalled and stalled the investigation? No. The reporters – who didn’t even write about the story. They simply investigated it.
Once people know they can’t trust the investigators, (and they’re already nearly there) why would they help? I’m certainly not going to contribute to a report if I think the reporter will have to turn me in.
Doctors have immunity. Lawyers have immunity. They have long been recognized as contributing to the greater good by their access to privileged information. It’s long overdue to give journalists that same immunity. Otherwise, the Fourth Estate might as well be the a backyard shed.
15 Comments Add your own
1. Charlie Sierra | September 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
The Shield Law is bullshit.
Its nothing but a special privelge exemption for the media (who defines that?) to break the law.
I say throw the bastards in jail, so big bad bubba can entertain himself.
Also save your mindless pontificating about the fourth estate. Nobody trusts them, assuming we ever did. The media has disgraced itself, and should only look in the mirror for any problems it can drum up.
Fuck the media, and I’m not alone.
2. Tim | September 24th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
1. The previous poster obviously believes that reporting facts, even inconvenient facts, breaks the law. If it’s a national security matter, how come we don’t prosecute the government official that discloses the secret, just the reporter?
2. The paragraph beginning “A judge is demanding” doesn’t explain what the judge is demanding …
3. Steve Safran | September 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Thank you, Tim. Editing error.
And though I often wonder why people with such a virulent hatred of the media read a site dedicated to its improvement, I nontheless enjoy hearing all parts of the argument. I disagree with Charlie Sierra (Tango Uniform?) calling the editorial “mindless,” (after all, I did put my mind to it, he just disagrees) but insofar as editorials are meant to preach a point of view, I’ll give him “pontificating.” (I’d go with “advocating,” but an advocate is called a pontificator by those who don’t agree.)
4. Vinny | September 24th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Steve, next time you’re in New York, if you don’t let me know so I can buy you a beer, I’m gonna hate you forever.
Seriously.
Well said!
5. Maxx | September 24th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Just a side note on the Barry Bonds issue. I think that it is very low to ONLY attack Barry Bonds when so many people in baseball are / were / did abuse steriods. There are many different ways to use steroids other than using alot to bulk up. Pitchers use them throw harder and faster. Players of all potitions use them to heal faster and come back from injurys faster.
The game changes. Equipment, medicine, players, rules ect. You can’t compare other generations players against todays players. It just doesnt work. The players of ol’ had to work real jobs. Barry Bonds deserves to get his record if he can get there. They are all juiced so its fair.
6. Alyssa | September 25th, 2006 at 7:28 am
What Would Helen Thomas Say?
7. Charlie Sierra | September 25th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Dear Tim(2),
Thanks for exposing yourself as a moron.
As to your first point, the ends dont justify the means.
As to your second point, the reason government officals aren’t prosecuted is precisely because the media shields them. Hence the name of the law. I mean come on man, buy a freakin’ vowel.
8. News Consumer | September 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
You say, “Doctors have immunity. Lawyers have immunity.” Both are licensed to practice. I doubt you would want the same requirements for journalists. But without a certification who is to say who is a journalist and who is not.
Is anyone with a blog a journalist? If so, that could pretty much cover every single person in the country within the next few years. So anyone could say anything about anyone else and claim legal protections as a “journalist.”
9. Vinny | September 26th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Unfortunately that slippery slope holds no weight.
Journalism is not about who you report for, it’s what you do. Whether you report on corruption as a blogger or an anchorman on one of the alphabet networks, you are engaging in journalism.
It’s the act, not the employer that makes one a journalist.
10. Vidiot | September 26th, 2006 at 10:41 am
News Consumer, journalists are not exempt from libel and slander laws, and still cannot “say anything about anyone else.” I’d agree with Safran that “journalism lies in the act and not the title”. I’m a blogger, and I’m a journalist. Sometimes I commit journalism on my blog (but most times I don’t, preferring by and large to focus on other matters), and when I do, the fact that my words are in electronic form and self-published doesn’t make them less journalistic.
And Charlie Sierra, is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? Your assertion that “the reason government officals aren’t prosecuted is precisely because the media shields them. Hence the name of the law” is demonstrably untrue and exactly backwards.
11. MAK | September 26th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
By and large I do agree with the editorial, but it does leave out one fact.
Leaking Grand Jury testimonies is breaking the law. The Grand Jury system as it currently exists may be flawed but it is time tested and on very solid legal footing. The rights of those testifying are no less important than the right to report the story.
So the question becomes who gets to decide what’s more important the story or the law? Couldn’t a “shield law” be used to tip the balance too far toward the reporter’s side?
MAK
12. News Consumer | September 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Vidiot… I still think there is a fundamental issue here. Journalists want shield protection to essentially do what is illegal for the average citizen (Publish gov’t secrets, legally protected documents like court papers, etc.) But the best definition you fail to define who a journalist is or what journalism is. It’s a “I know it when I see it” definition of journalism.
So without a legal definition of journalist, anyone can hide behind that name and do what would otherwise be illegal and damaging to society.
Journalists have done great good in the past in releasing certain protected information, and at great risk. But today, journalists seem to want to take the risk out of it, making it far to easy for the system to be abused.
13. insignificant thoughts &r&hellip | October 5th, 2006 at 5:20 am
[...] Lost Remote: Demand a Federal Shield Law Now Indeed we should. Steve Safran is right on the money. (tags: stevesafran steve safran lostremote.com lost remote journalism) [...]
14. tie penis weight&hellip | January 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
free niggas nude pics…
free sex teen pantys…
15. gay swingers&hellip | February 24th, 2007 at 1:52 am
what are the pros and cons of premarital sex?…
sex girl school…
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed