Issue
Virtually all states provide protections, either by statute or by judicial decision, so that journalists are not routinely forced to reveal the identity of confidential sources. In federal courts, however, there is no uniform set of standards to govern when information about confidential sources can be sought from reporters. Broadcast journalists’ ability to bring important matters to the American public has been put in jeopardy as numerous reporters have been questioned about their confidential sources or had their records subpoenaed in cases before federal courts. Recent sweeping subpoenas of phone records and emails of news organizations further highlight the importance of enacting bipartisan legislation that would set clear standards for protecting confidential sources, including whistleblowers and others with important information.
History
Legislation ensuring the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources, known as reporter’s shield, advanced farther in 2009 than ever before. The “Free Flow of Information Act,” cleared the U.S. House of Representatives by voice vote while its counterpart cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the Senate bill eventually stalled, recent government interactions with the press have given the legislation new life.
On May 13, 2013, it was announced that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed a broad range of phone records from the Associated Press. NAB and more than 50 major media organizations co-signed a letter to the department to “express our displeasure with how this incident was handled and demand that any similar actions in the future be handled with greater consideration of the news media’s First Amendment rights.”
The letter called for a strong federal reporter shield law, which it said was “needed to protect reporters and their newsgathering materials in a court of law where the adversarial process ensures a fair weighing of the issues.”
On May 17, after wide media coverage of both the incident and the letter, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 was introduced, by providing a qualified privilege that prevents reporters’ source material from being revealed to government investigators except under certain narrow circumstances.
NAB Position
Federal legislation to protect journalists, and companies that employ journalists, from being forced to reveal the identities of confidential sources except in defined circumstances such as threats to national security, is widely supported by electronic and print media. Compelling the disclosure of confidential sources has a chilling effect on the flow of information to the public, and discourages “whistleblowers” from coming forward with evidence of waste, fraud and abuse in government and the private sector. Legislation such as the Free Flow of Information Act protects the confidential relationship between reporters and their sources, promotes the reporting of important information to the public and accounts for legitimate government interests in law enforcement and security.
Action Needed
Congress should support bipartisan efforts (S. 987 and H.R. 1962) to ensure that protections for journalists’ sources at the federal level reflect the protections already granted in nearly every state across the country.
