Shield laws in the United States (wikipedia) As I mentioned months ago Wikipedia is not an academic source but a great place to get a quick summary and starting point.
A “shield law” is legislation designed to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the newsgathering and dissemination process.
There is no federal shield law (although a limited one has been passed by the House and awaits a Senate vote as of July 2008), and state shield laws vary in scope, as further discussed in this article. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, “a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source” law.
Veteran reporter Judith Miller joins Fox News
NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) – Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court during the Valerie Plame affair, has joined the Fox News Channel as a contributor, the network said Monday.
Miller will be an analyst at Fox News on security and international affairs and write for FoxNews.com.
Before joining Fox News Channel, Miller was a New York Times reporter for 25 years. She was jailed in 2005 when she declined to reveal the name of a confidential source to a federal grand jury investigating Plame’s unmasking as a CIA operative.
Miller won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting about terrorism and has written about that topic and many others. She also is an adjunct at the Manhattan Institute.
“a special prosecutor’s zeal to get a conviction in a case involving a non-crime”
More recently, Colin Powell sat silent while two lives were ruined in a special prosecutor’s zeal to get a conviction in a case involving a non-crime: telling columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.
The full story is told in Novak’s book, “The Prince of Darkness.” What is relevant here is that a New York Times reporter went to jail for refusing to tell who had revealed Ms. Plame’s occupation to her, and White House aide Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury because his memory of what he said did not match the memories of some reporters– whose memories did not match each other’s.
All the while Colin Powell knew that his own subordinate, Richard Armitage, was the one who had told Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Neither Armitage nor anybody else was convicted for that because there was no crime to convict them of.
The only crimes were those created in the course of the investigation, unless the silence of Richard Armitage and Colin Powell are regarded as moral crimes.
I think a grave injustice was done to a number of people in the instances cited above. On the other hand this recent Rashid Khalidi story concerning the LA Times is a different aspect of the issue. An unidentified source says he videotaped a dinner at which politically sensitive issues were discussed. Khalidi and Obama were at the dinner. The source gave a tape to the L A Times with the condition that they not release it. They say they released a transcript. One issue is how do we know the integrity of the transcript. There’s been a lot of news articles about that this week see here In Camera.
Not releasing the tape has created a lot of negative speculation that what is on the tape could be harmful to Obama. Apparently the transcript wasn’t. I haven’t read it. So if a reporter doesn’t disclose sources it leads to speculation about the credibility of the reporter and the sources. If a reporter discloses sources, it puts the reporter out of business.
My experience as an auditor was if someone told me where to look for a problem that they new existed I kept their identity secret from everyone. I then had a subordinate audit or I personally audited the information and if I found problems I reported them as routine audit findings. If a reporter invents issues and reports them as actual that too is harmful.
The Federal Government has whistleblower protection laws that are to protect someone who reports a contractor or employee ripping off the government. The whistleblower gets a financial reward and usually suffers job loss and a lot of harassment. Look here:
I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis.