Press Debates Shield Law, Miller/Cooper Case

By: Lesley Messer Since the "freeing" of Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and jailing of The New York Times' Judith Miller last Wednesday, news, analysis, and opinion on their predicament and journalists' rights have proliferated. Here's a summary of just a few stories from recent hours on various aspects of this issue.

Federal Shield Law

* The Wall Street Journal reported that those who support more expansive rights for journalists are demanding a federal shield law. But it comments: "Even if a federal shield law were to successfully obtain Congressional approval and a presidential signature -- which is unlikely -- there is much devil in the details. It is unclear whether the law would have prevented Miller's jailing, unclear who it would cover, and even unclear that it would actually benefit journalists at all."

* Advocates of the law maintain that it is necessary to give whistle-blowers the security they need to come forward and tell their stories to reporters, according the Rocky Mountain News. Writes Editor John Temple: "Even with a federal shield law, journalists on rare occasions are going to be ordered to divulge their secrets. That is why journalists should weigh and measure the value of information proffered to us on a confidential basis very seriously before promising to protect someone's identity in the first place."

* But critics like Barbara Reed, associate professor of journalism at Rutgers University and vice president of the Society of Professional Journalists, New Jersey chapter, worry that it could lead to less investigative reporting at a time when media credibility is already low, according to Asbury Park Press. The paper also reports that Reed said that the law could have holes, leading to inconsistency.

* Supporters and critics alike are wondering who would be included under such a law. The Wall Street Journal reported that a bill in the House said that this law should include bloggers, while the Senate's bill makes no mention of this group. Both critics and supporters maintain that this is an important detail to consider, especially because it raises the question, "who is a journalist?"

Ownership of Notes

* According to the online magazine Slate, ownership of reporters? notes is dependent upon a paper's individual policy. The Wall Street Journal, for example, maintains that any information obtained by one of its reporters belongs to the paper. The New York Times, on the other hand, asserts that a reporter's notes belong to him/her exclusively. However, there have been situations where the paper strays from its policy (i.e., Earl Caldwell).

An Industry Divided

Countless editorials have been devoted to the changing legislation as well as Miller and Cooper.

* The Miami Herald's David Kidwell (who went to jail to protect a source himself) praises Miller for keeping her promise to her source. He maintains that when someone promises to keep a source a secret, he/she owes it to that source to keep his/her word. Otherwise, reporters lose credibility amongst people with information and risk jeopardizing the future of investigative journalism.

* The Palm Beach Post published a similar editorial that added, "whom Ms. Miller is protecting, however, matters less than what she is protecting -- the ability of the press to get information when the only method is an anonymous source." Miller did not act above the law, as they were willing to accept the consequences of being held in contempt. However, the piece does criticize Cooper, calling his decision to testify one of "cowardice."

* Even so, some see Miller as a sort of martyr. While New York magazine writers Franklin Foer and Ryan Lizza did not outwardly criticize Miller, they did write, "All other reporters involved in the case apparently worked out agreements with their sources and the prosecutor, enabling them to testify. But that wasn?t good enough for her. She has resorted to civil disobedience to uphold her profession?s honor."

* Michael Kinsley of the L.A Times added that journalists are not above the law and when their notes are subpoenaed, they, like everyone else, should be required to provide them. If they refuse, they should be punished, as they are rebelling against the government and are guilty of civil disobedience. He also pointed out that just as Judith Miller has her secrets, so does the government, and its secrets should be protected too.

* But columnist Clarence Pages, after noting that "it has become chic among some of my colleagues to berate Miller for refusing to violate her confidence or to quietly work something out with the prosecutor, whatever that means," adds: "I admire her stubbornness. She's not above the law, she's taking her stand and serving her time, becoming an odd sort of martyr to the value of a feisty, independent press."