Detroit Free Press: "Protect Public's Right to Know"

Op-Ed

Detroit Free Press: "Protect Public's Right to Know"

BY U.S. REP. TIM WALBERG

I have often said that I came to Congress not to maintain the status quo in Washington, D.C., but to work for real, meaningful reform on how Congress spends taxpayer dollars.

As a conservative, I believe in limited government and fiscal discipline. In today's modern media age, the best way to keep our government accountable and devoid of corruption is a free and independent press.

While we can't protect reporters in every situation, our laws must give reporters a fair amount of protection to keep sources confidential.

We must prevent prosecutors and lawyers from forcing reporters to reveal confidential sources unless they have first exhausted all other sources and have the ability to prove the reporter's information is essential to the case.

A Feb. 17, 2005, New York Times editorial accurately describes the situation presently faced by journalists:

"Government officials with valuable information on matters of public interest may have second thoughts about trying to reach the public through trusted reporters. Journalists will more than ever have to weigh the risk of jail against the need to protect worthy sources, a practice with a long history of redounding to the citizenry's benefit."

Government waste, fraud and abuse are breaches of public trust, and we must not punish reporters who bring such indiscretions to light through confidential sources.

Passing legislation creating a federal media shield is the best way to protect the public's right to know and is why I am supporting the Free Flow of Information Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

This bipartisan bill's stated purpose is to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

The Free Flow of Information Act would establish national standards for subpoenas issued to reporters by an entity or employee of the federal government. This would create an appropriate balance between justice and the public's right to know.

Additionally, this bill would not apply in situations where a source's identity must be revealed to prevent "imminent and actual harm" to national security, to prevent "imminent death or significant bodily harm," or to identify disclosed trade secrets or a person's protected financial or medical information.

Right now, 49 states, including Michigan, have shield laws on the books or operate under court rulings that give reporters and their sources a "privilege" similar to those given to clergy, therapists and their patients and lawyers and their clients.

Unfortunately, no such law exists on a federal level.

Two of the most fundamental American rights are freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Congress needs to pass a media shield law to ensure our marketplace of ideas remains intact, the process of newsgathering is protected and the public's right to know is safeguarded.

Source