Better Late Than Never -- The Press Finally Starts Doing Its Job.

The U.S. media has been in a tizzy for the past few days, over freedom of the press and journalist-source privilege. What's brought this to a head is that the media's constitutional "ox" has finally been "gored" -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller was finally ordered to jail last week by a federal judge, for refusing to reveal her source in the ongoing "Valerie Plame CIA agent outting" affair.

The intrepid editors of our hometown paper even got into the act a couple of days ago, with a nice little editorial published on Tuesday, bemoaning the federal government's encroachment on protections contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The Std-Ex made some excellent points in this strong editorial. It's a short one, so I'll quote it in full:

"Goodbye, and don't betray me too much." -- Simone Signoret
(ending an interview)

Americans assume, wrongly, that the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights are of an absolute nature. Just because the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." doesn't mean we have free speech or that the press is free.

The courts have seen to that over the past 200-plus years.

The primary sticking point vis-à-vis the press has always been the use of anonymous sources. For reporters to get information about corporate wrongdoing, government corruption and the like, they often have to depend on anonymous sources for information.

That being the case, prosecutors who want to build cases against the wrongdoers enjoy compelling reporters to reveal their sources. Indeed, a federal prosecutor and judge just last week ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to jail for refusing to reveal a source -- for a story she never wrote.

Most states -- between 31 and 49, depending on which sources you believe -- have shield laws that protect reporters from having to reveal anonymous sources. Utah is one of those states.

But the federal government does not. That's why Miller is in jail: Federal law permits prosecutors and judges to coerce reporters' cooperation by locking them up. This is not a partisan issue, but an ethical one. And it highlights the need for a federal shield law to protect reporters from over-zealous and unconscionable officers of the court who resort to intimidation in trying to get journalists to betray confidences with their sources.

This is vitally important to the health of the nation. And here's a good example: What if The Washington Post had been somehow compelled to reveal the name of its anonymous sources -- including FBI official W. Mark Felt, who before revealing his own identity earlier this year was known only as "Deep Throat" -- early in the course of its Watergate reportage? It's possible that such intimidation would have stalled the investigation by drying up the anonymous sources and we may never have discovered the full extent of the corruption within the Nixon administration.

Congress is now considering a pair of bills that would establish federal shield laws. But the House and Senate versions differ in some significant ways. For example, the House bill defines Internet "bloggers" as journalists to be protected, but the Senate does not. Some legal scholars warn that any definition of who is or is not a journalist curtails the liberties granted by the First Amendment -- defining who is or is not a journalist may be tantamount to licensing.

We would prefer a federal law that grants absolute privilege for confidential sources, reporters and the information they provide. A free press -- a truly free press -- is an absolute necessity in an open society. Without it, citizens of this nation will not be able to know what is going on in government or any other aspect of the society, because sources will know their anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Freedom of speech is our nation's bedrock liberty. It must be made to flourish, free of threats from prosecutors and judges who would strip it away from those people who reveal the news of the day.

I'll also volunteer that I entirely agree with the Std-Ex editorial staff on this. For what it's worth, I agree with their every word. Freedom of the press is crucial in a free society, and if any "privilege" ought to be absolute, or near-absolute, it's journalist-source privilege, as far as I'm concerned. It's a privilege that protects not only journalists, but also benefits the general public at large.

Having said that, I find it fascinating that the establishment print (and broadcast) media has taken so long to look into the "meat" of the Valerie Plame story. It's been simmering for several years, but they're only just getting around to examining it now -- and only because "one of their own" is cooling her heels in the federal calaboose. Involving spies, high-level dirty deeds and international intrigue as it does, the story seems like just the kind of cloak-and-dagger stuff that would would sell plenty of newspapers to our reality show-addicted American public. But for all intents and purposes the establishment media hasn't covered it at all. Some would suggest that "cover-up" would be a more accurate description, in fact.

For those who don't know what the Valerie Plame story's all about, it's not your fault. The establishment media has let us down on this. For those interested in catching up, you can find good summaries here and here. The Whiskey Bar blog also has a particularly scathing article on the topic here.

The Std-Ex editorial mentions Nixon and Watergate; and I've often speculated that the Valerie Plame story would evolve into president Bush's own version of that. Woodward and Bernstein are button-down establishment journalists now, of course; and it seems the establishment media has failed to rear any idealistic youngsters to take their place.

I'm all in favor of the broad shield law that the Std-Ex editors advocate. I'm not convinced, however that the the public has been very well-served by the establishment media in recent years, and I'd hope they continue to dig into the facts of the disgraceful Plame affair, now that the story seems to have finally caught their attention.

Perhaps this vicarious brush with the prison experience will remind American journalists that they're supposed to be the whistleblowers for the people, and not lobbyists for the neoCON chamber of deputies.

The Std-Ex is off to a good, though belated start on this, I believe, with this San Jose Mercury-News article, which appeared on this morning's editorial page. (Free subscription required.)