Press Shield: Mighty Fortress

The First Amendment recognizes freedom of the press as an inalienable right. Rights require protection, for even in countries as dedicated to liberty as the United States, individual and corporate rights can fall under siege.

A flourishing press -- a press that fulfills its watchdog role, for example -- relies on confidential sources. Although we remain wary of stories that cite so-called anonymous sources, we recognize that journalists can receive tips that lead them to crucial information. Whistleblowers concerned about retaliation need assurances that their identities will not be revealed. The relationship between reporter and source can be abused, but there will be instances in which confidentiality remains key to the development of a major story.

Shield laws protect reporters and their sources from government demands for exposure. Because the press understands that in certain instances, usually involving national security, the government has legitimate reasons for learning the name of a source, sound shield laws stipulate procedures allowing the government to make its case. The federal approach remains insufficient.

The House of Representatives has passed a federal shield bill that enjoys the support of professional journalists as well as the backing of scholars. Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia's 9th District was the legislation's principal sponsor. The commonwealth's delegation united behind the bill.

The shield bill has encountered difficulties in the Senate. The Bush administration opposed the free flow of information. As a senator, Barack Obama supported the shield. His administration has not proved cooperative. It has proposed exemptions that would transform the shield into a sieve. The New York Times and The Washington Post have criticized Obama's reversal. They decry broken promises of transparency. The Times laments that Obama seems "intent on killing a fair shield bill." We share those concerns. Sen. Obama set a much better example.