Extra, Extra

The news is in the news.

• This week

  The Times-Dispatch's Wes Hester reported that two student journalists at James Madison University face school charges for entering a dorm in search of comments for a news story for publication in The Breeze, the campus newspaper. Tim Chapman and Katie Hibson sought to interview students regarding allegations of a peeping Tom. The school claims the two violated regulations applying to residence halls. Chapman and Hibson say they followed proper procedures.

The issue transcends the immediate question of dorm access. The university bears the name of one of the principal drafters of the Constitution and an author of a Bill of Rights that includes First Amendment protections for the press. According to historians, Madison's appreciation of his own handiwork increased as he witnessed governmental attempts to manipulate the press during the Republic's formative years. The JMU administration's stance suggests not only a zero-tolerance inanity but an indifference to a fundamental aspect of liberty.

Reports of a peeper in a dorm shower are of great interest to students. College journalists in search of the details and of student perspectives ought to be encouraged -- not impeded. JMU mocks the legacy of its namesake. Chapman and Hibson evoke Madisonian ideals. The American Library Association's James Madison Award honors individuals or groups who have promoted freedom of information at the federal level. The JMU incident seemingly may not qualify, but the young journalists capture the spirit of the prize.

• Congress again is considering legislation to enact a federal shield law. Press shields protect journalists and their sources. Many states have them; the national government does not, in part because issues related to national security are more likely to arise at the federal level than at the state or local. Shield laws on the congressional agenda would invest in judges the authority to decide when the press should be compelled to disclose its sources.

The Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration's position that the executive branch should make the calls regarding confidentiality. In other words, a branch that might be the subject of an investigative report would be the one deciding whether sources must be named. Although we are not fond of anonymous sources, there are instances when such sources play essential roles in the development of crucial stories. We also recognize that on occasion the government will be justified in demanding a source's identity. We would entrust those decisions to the courts.

Lobbyists on behalf of press freedom concede they are surprised at the Obama administration's hostility to a federal shield. We are not surprised, not one little bit. Whether wielded by Republicans or Democrats, power protects itself.