By Alabama Public Radio
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wual/local-wual-882210.mp3
Tuscaloosa AL – Congress is considering a bill that would establish federal protections for journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources. That 'qualified privilege' is considered critical to maintaining the media's ability to cover controversial stories the public needs to hear. But there are concerns, and an Alabama lawmaker is at the forefront of the opposition. Alabama Public Radio's Brett Tannehill reports ...
After 5 years of political wrangling, the first ever federal media shield law ... called the Free Flow of Information Act ... has passed the US House, and finally made it to consideration before the Senate.
SESSIONS-I've got to tell you, it's a complex little matter ...
That's Senator Jeff Sessions, one of the bill's opponents. He says the bill would protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources. Sessions says if those sources are leaking information detrimental to national security and public safety, the results could be disastrous.
SESSION (cont.) ... People think it's real simple but it is not and the more I got into it, the more concerned I became, and the more I realized just how complex it is.
One of the complexities is how to ... or whether to ... limit protections for journalists. Sessions says the current bill gives protections so broad that everyone from bloggers to people who write newsletters could hide where they get information about sensitive data like troop movements. But Kevin Smith, president of the media advocacy group, the Society of Professional Journalists, says Sessions and other opponents are fear mongering.
SMITH-It's being painted ... that all of a sudden there's going to this avalanche of classified information that people are just going to be throwing at the press, and the press is going to be writing about all sorts of things that jeopardize national security, the judicial system. And clearly that's not going to be the case.
You don't have to look far to find fuel for the debate over whether a 'free flow of information' can impact national security. Just last month, subpoenas were issued for at least two bloggers who leaked airline screening procedures used by the Transportation Security Administration.
The bill now before the Senate would have offered some protection to these bloggers says Stacey Woelful. He's chairman of the Radio Television Digital News Association, another media advocacy group ... and he thinks bloggers should be treated as 'journalists' if they are writing about matters of public interest. In the case of the TSA bloggers, Woelful thinks they were. He says without protections, whistle-blowers could stop talking and reporters could stop reporting on critical issues.
WOELFUL - You don't know what stories journalists don't pursue ... You don't know how many don't happen because of this. It's that 'chilling effect' that so often has been rolled out as having a real impact on media and the power to report.
But the TSA example also shows how the traditional definition of a journalist' has been forever changed by new outlets for reporting. Senator Sessions says that definition will be a major point of contention during upcoming debate on the Senate floor.
SESSIONS-We've got bloggers of all types and shapes, so who actually would have the power to refuse to tell the government how they got information that may be of life and death import(ance) is an important thing, and this bill is definitely not clear and too expansive about that I think.
It's also worth noting Alabama already has it own shield law ... and that law has its own limits. In 2005, former Alabama football coach Mike Price sued Sports Illustrated to force it to reveal confidential sources used to detail alleged indiscretions that helped lead to Price's dismissal. The judge in that case ruled Alabama's statute protects reporters for newspapers, radio and television ... but not magazines. Sports Illustrated didn't want to reveal its sources, so it settled the case out of court.
Those on both sides of this debate agree that protecting the press from undue government intrusion is important. They also agree that placing limits on protections will have consequences. But they disagree if those consequences will be most harmful if Congress approves protections that are too broad or too narrow.
Brett Tannehill, APR News