Steve Coll argues that legislation that aims to protect journalists from “indiscriminate government subpoenas” is important, but only if done right:
[Current guidelines for federal prosecutors seeking evidence from journalists] are far from ideal—they have loopholes that give an Attorney General wide discretion. Yet they have often discouraged Justice from overreaching. The guidelines require that the Attorney General sign off on all media subpoenas, that any demands “be as narrowly drawn as possible,” and that, in all but the most exceptional cases, news organizations be notified of a subpoena, giving them time to appeal it in court. …
In the long run, to rebalance the national-security state and to otherwise revitalize American democracy, the United States requires a Supreme Court willing to deepen protections for investigative reporters, as the majority in Branzburg would not. In response to criticism about the A.P. case, Obama has reintroduced federal legislation that would clarify journalists’ rights. Such a federal “shield law” might be constructive, but new legislation with overly broad national-security exceptions would be even worse than the status quo.
Peter Sterne talks to the Society of Professional Journalists:
The proposed federal shield law before the Senate is even weaker than Colorado’s. It simply allows journalists to petition a judge, who weighs the story’s public interest value and decides whether the journalist should be forced to reveal his or her sources. The Society of Professional Journalists, which has been pushing for shield laws, said that something is better than nothing, but it nonetheless called for stronger protections.
Meanwhile, Dick Durbin equivocates on who should be protected by a federal shield law:
[H]ere is the bottom line – the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013?
We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection. We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.
The Dish 