"The Bush administration’s disdain for the press isn’t new. But it has worsened since reporters began questioning the war in Iraq and the war on terror. What has happened with reporters Judith Miller and Matt Cooper went beyond the pale.

Miller committed no crime. She was gathering information for a story."
[...]
"Not true. The press wants to tell people what chemical plants aren’t properly inspected and easy to sabotage, what agriculture is vulnerable to poisoning, what campaign donor-companies are profiting from the Iraq war and what government officials dropped the ball in the hunt for al-Qaida terrorists before the Sept. 11 attacks. Some of this information comes from confidential sources."
Source

I just watched the senate debate over the topic of a shield law for the press. It appears there has never been any serious need for a shied law in the past because from the start of United States, the people and government have respected and understood the concept of a free press. One in which will strengthen national security by weeding out potential abuse from the government within.

The US is founded on the idea that we as humans cannot trust each other completely. That no one group is more patriotic than another, that any man or group has the potential to become corrupt. A free press fights this concept by having no direct connection with whom it is reviewing. The press is biased, yes, but putting a gage on it will not make it less bias, it will make it more controlled by the very entity it is watching over – our government.

Now after a mere 150 years latter, G.W.B comes along and decides that the idea of a free press, one in which is shielded from obsessive persecution (jail, loss of job / career), is a bad idea. This is just more evidence of Bush’s true agenda, one I do not fully understand, but one I know is truly detrimental to us all.

There should be a law to protect whistle blowers for the public! I mean... what the hell? Why shouldn't there?

Freedom of speech is protected, Bush can not do anything about that! The only time that law does not apply is when it can danger the security of the country, Get that the media tells to much, now news sells and the do not care who finds out what, If the story will sell then hell tell the whole word, We will just pick up the dead and write about that too.!

See the problem with this idea is Bush can make anything out to be a danger to national security. Like - the press cannot tell you something because it would undermine my presidency, and that would undermine national security.

Why is it that in the past 200 years this nation has not had a problem with the press exposing the government's deeds? Now Bush comes along and has a big old stink about it. National security he says; the only security we need in this country is security from him.

When bush a company wins this fight in Washington, he will have set a new precedent for news reporting. One in which sources will not talk to reporters at all in light that the reporter could be jailed if they do not expose the source. Now we will get no information about scandals in the US Government. Great!



So what are you saying?

I am saying that the Shield Law should pass. If you silence one source... how many other kinds of sources (whistle blowers) are you going to put duct tape on their mouths? Also, with this law not being able to pass you would put a grip on reporters using their freedom of press and their right to protect their sources!

Think you are a source to some HUGE company... you will only come clean to a report if your ID was protected and it would blow the whistle on the company for making bad products that could harm a lot of people.

To protect the source is not a big deal compared to the bigger picture.

Update:

ABA Backs Federal Shield Law

It's a tricky situation, because journalists relying on "confidential sources" are basically engaging in espionage. The people giving them that information are breaking the law. If an employee of a foreign government did what these reporters are doing, they would be prosecuted for espionage. Come to think of it, intelligence officers rely on open sources for a lot of their information.

I haven't read the text of the law so I really can't comment on it. It sounds like a good idea in principle.