Obama’s Shield Law ‘flip-flop’Rockford (Ill.) Register Star
GateHouse News Service
Posted Oct 09, 2009 @ 09:00 AM
ROCKFORD, Ill. —
LINK

National Newspaper Week would be the perfect time to adopt a long-sought federal shield law to protect journalists.

However, because of a recent reversal by President Barack Obama, we're not optimistic.

Obama was a supporter of S. 448, formally known as the Free Flow of Information Act, but changed his mind last week after meeting with national security officials.

Without the support of the president, it's unlikely the act will make its way through Congress.

The law would provide limited protection to journalists who receive information from government whistle-blowers and other anonymous sources.

"Apparently to the dismay of the administration, this bill currently contains language that would require concerns about national security matters to be taken before an impartial judge -- who would then appropriately weigh the need to protect information versus the public's right to know," writes Kevin Z. Smith, Society of Professional Journalists president.

"Not surprisingly, the Justice Department sees this as problematic because it wants to have the lone say in what constitutes national security. So, Obama instructed his legal team to propose different language that ultimately renders S. 448 useless."

Obama's flip-flop is disappointing. We'd like to remind the president of what he said at the 2005 Illinois Press Association awards luncheon, where a member of this Editorial Board was present.

Obama, then a U.S. senator, promised to sponsor a federal shield law, but he did not think he would find support among congressional Republicans. He called President Bush's White House "the most secretive administration at least since Richard Nixon's and perhaps outdoes Nixon in some ways."

Reporters need all the tools they can get to deal with bureaucracies and political powers that prefer to conceal information. Political powers use intimidation, threats and even arrests and trials in an attempt to keep journalists from doing their jobs.

A shield law would shine an even brighter light on government because whistle-blowers will be confident they won't be identified.

Confidential sources have proved to be essential in exposing information of critical public importance. Media experts believe that reporters too many times become the first stop for prosecutors and plaintiffs who want shortcuts to information they might be able to obtain in other ways.

It's time to protect reporters and the valuable sources they rely on to dig up important stories you deserve to read.

SPJ President criticizes federal shield law changes in editorial
Society of Professional Journalists, 10/6/2009
LINK

The following is an editorial from SPJ President Kevin Z. Smith that was written in response to the recent changes made to the federal shield law bill by the Obama administration. It is open for publication:

Shield Law revisions endanger free press, the American public
By Kevin Z. Smith
President, Society of Professional Journalists

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on legislation that would grant federal protection to journalists and, more importantly, their anonymous sources.

In this age of Enron, Balco and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it is critical that people who have information vital to the public get some protection to share their stories. Without this law, many may not come forward. When that happens, we all suffer.

Up until last week, there was confidence the bill – S. 448, also known as the Free Flow of Information Act – would finally jettison from the Senate Judiciary Committee with the blessing of Democrats and Republicans. Just about all that remained was the need to iron out details of national security interests and language to determine who would actually be covered under the bill. No small task, to be sure. But neither seemed insurmountable.

Then the White House dropped its hammer. The administration, which previously backed the bill, had a sudden change of heart and reversed its support. On the campaign trail, then-candidate Barack Obama pledged to support the idea of more protection for journalists and their sources. He held onto that belief until last week, when, after a meeting of high-level national security officials, he did an about-face. His move has outraged a number of the bill’s proponents, including high-ranking Democrats sponsoring S. 448.

Apparently to the dismay of the administration, this bill currently contains language that would require concerns about national security matters to be taken before an impartial judge – who would then appropriately weigh the need to protect information verses the public’s right to know. Not surprisingly, the Justice Department sees this as problematic because it wants to have the lone say in what constitutes national security. So, Obama instructed his legal team to propose different language that ultimately renders S. 448 useless.

And without the administration’s support, it is unlikely Democratic senators will support the bill, which means it will likely never see the light of day for a full Senate vote. In essence, this reversal may very well kill the bill Obama so heartedly supported a few months ago.

If a bill with the administration’s proposed language passes, it would clear the way for federal prosecutors to threaten reporters with jail time or fines for the sake of “national security.” If reporters refuse to give up the information, they would likely find themselves thrown into jail until they change their tune. Without a current law on the books, this has been a common tactic of the Justice Department. And, undoubtedly, some members of the public have avoided going to the press because of fears that a reporter may identity them rather than face jail time or fines.

While the concept of journalists going to jail isn’t new, the rate at which they are called into court is on the rise. Evidence shows federal subpoenas of journalists has dramatically increased in the past eight years. This is exactly what the nation’s news gatherers are trying to stop – the continuation of the federal government’s wholesale attack on the media whenever it feels information threatens operations.

Sadly, Justice Department and national security officials have convinced the president that journalists should go to jail more frequently. And they have convinced him that citizens with information on corruption, negligence and wrongdoing should think twice about coming forward.

And because of that, we may all suffer.

SPJ is outraged by Obama administration changes to shield law bill
SPJ, 10/2/2009
LINK

For immediate release

Contacts:
Kevin Z. Smith, SPJ President, 304-367-4864,
ksmith@spj.org
Karen Grabowski, SPJ Communications Coordinator, 317-927-8000 ext. 215, kgrabowski@spj.org

INDIANAPOLIS – Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists are outraged that the Obama administration has reversed course and is now proposing changes that essentially render useless S. 448, more commonly known as the Free Flow of Information Act. If implemented, the administration’s changes would weaken the proposed shield law and offer little to no protection for reporters who refuse to disclose confidential sources.

SPJ strongly encourages the administration to reconsider its position and focus on the importance of a federal shield law and how vital it is to the existence of a free press and an informed citizenry. SPJ also encourages all journalists to support the legislation by continuing to contact lawmakers and voice their support for a strong and meaningful federal shield law. The Society applauds the efforts of the senators who support S. 448 and the protections for journalists and urges them to continue the battle.

“Not long ago, President Obama was a key supporter of this bill, but after one meeting with his national security team he appears to have been scared into making this poor decision,” SPJ President Kevin Smith said.

According to The New York Times, the proposed changes came after President Obama met with top members of his national security team, including Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The latest stance is an about face to the support the administration gave early in the process. It also comes in direct opposition to the promises President Obama made regarding a federal shield law during his campaign and his previous actions as a senator.

“President Obama was elected by the people, for the people. It’s time for him to stand up and support legislation that gives those people the power to have better oversight of their government,” Smith said.

While campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination in April 2008, Obama said during the annual meeting of the Associated Press that he supported the proposed legislation, the Free Flow of Information Act. He also became a cosponsor of S. 2035, the bill’s number in the Senate at the time, on April 14, 2008. Click here for links to the articles that reported President Obama’s comments supporting a federal shield law.

SPJ leaders will hold President Obama to his promise and continue to push for a federal shield law that protects journalists and their confidential sources while also protecting national security. SPJ will continue to fight for the federal shield law, as it has done for years, until a law is enacted. Read the letter former SPJ President Dave Aeikens sent to President Obama January 13, 2009, asking him to follow through on his promise.

Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For more information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.

October 1, 2009
White House Proposes Changes in Bill Protecting Reporters’ Confidentiality
By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY TIMES

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

The bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”

But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The two Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said on Wednesday that they were disappointed by the administration’s position.

Mr. Specter called the proposed changes “totally unacceptable,” saying they would gut meaningful judicial review. And in a statement, Mr. Schumer said: “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it hard to pass this legislation.”

But Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, called the proposed changes appropriate and argued that the administration was making a significant concession by accepting some judicial review. He noted that the Bush administration had strongly opposed such a bill as an incursion into executive power.

“The president believes the courts should have the power to review whether administrations appropriately conclude that the disclosure of information is necessary because maintaining confidentiality could cause significant harm to our national security,” Mr. LaBolt said.

The administration informed Congress of its proposal after an Oval Office meeting Monday between Mr. Obama and several top members of his national security team, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.; the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III; and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, according to people involved with the negotiations. Military and intelligence officials have also expressed concerns about the bill.

Several advocates for reporting groups reacted with dismay. They noted that as a senator, Mr. Obama had co-sponsored an earlier version of the “media shield” bill and that Mr. Holder had testified in favor of such legislation.

“This is the question I would have to ask, ‘Do they really want a bill?’ ” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “It doesn’t appear that they do.”

Proponents of a shield law argue that it is in the public interest to allow reporters to protect confidential sources in order to bring important information to light. Opponents note that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information is illegal and argue that members of the news media should not be allowed to decide whether exposing national security secrets is justified.

About three dozen states have some form of a reporter-shield law, Ms. Dalglish said.

In a recent letter calling for a vote on the shield bill, Mr. Specter said that at least 19 journalists had been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors for information about confidential sources since 2001 and that four had been imprisoned for refusing to comply.

Among them was Judith Miller, who as a reporter for The New York Times was subpoenaed in connection to the Valerie Wilson C.I.A. leak case. Prosecutors also threatened two San Francisco Chronicle reporters with jail over reporting based on leaked grand jury information about steroid use by professional athletes.

The House has already approved a version of the shield bill, but it has stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Specter said lawmakers should vote the bill out and let the Obama administration, which has not taken an official stance on the bill, deal with it openly.

“If the president wants to veto it, let him veto it,” Mr. Specter said. “I think it is different for the president to veto a bill than simply to pass the word from his subordinates to my subordinates that he doesn’t like the bill.”