White House Wants Fewer Reporter Protections in Shield Law

[Better Believe It]

White House Wants Fewer Protections in Shield Law
By Joe Strupp
Joe Strupp is a senior editor at Editor and Publisher
October 1, 2009

NEW YORK President Barack Obama's administration has reportedly come out against a proposed federal shield law, at least the way it is currently structured.

The New York Times reports today White House officials told congressional leaders they opposed the legislation pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee that would shield reporters from jail time for failing to reveal sources. The Times cites "several people involved with the negotiations."

It adds that the administration sent to Congress "sweeping revisions" to the bill that "would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004017789

---------------------------------------------



White House Proposes Changes in Bill Protecting Reporters’ Confidentiality
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
September 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

The bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”

But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The two Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said on Wednesday that they were disappointed by the administration’s position.

Mr. Specter called the proposed changes “totally unacceptable,” saying they would gut meaningful judicial review. And in a statement, Mr. Schumer said: “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it hard to pass this legislation.”

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01shield.html?_r=1&ref=us

---------------------------------------------

Shield law would exclude unpaid journalists
Lynsi Burton, Hearst Washington Bureau
September 18, 2009

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to exclude unpaid journalists from protection under a pending media shield bill


The panel approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that defines a journalist as a "salaried employee of, or independent contractor for" media organizations, including newspapers, magazines, broadcast networks and wire services.

The Schumer amendment moves the Senate bill closer to House legislation passed in March that provides shield protection to journalists.

But critics of media shield legislation have argued that such protection should be limited and that a broad definition could extend to bloggers, student reporters and citizen journalists. The Schumer amendment was designed to address that criticism by narrowing the definition of protected journalists.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - a leading advocate of shield protection - criticized the amendment.

"I could see it being interpreted to eliminate all Internet journalists," she said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/17/MNQN19OOEQ.DTL

[AndyA]

1. Can't have any embarrassing information getting out, can we?

It would have been so much easier on Bushco if all that crap about Valerie Plame had remained a secret. What the American people don't know won't hurt them, right? :eyes:

Thanks for that change we were promised, guys.