Protection That Works

What a difference an election makes. As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama supported a strong federal media shield law to protect the free flow of information and the public's ability to keep a watchful eye on government. But now that he's president, Obama's administration is proposing revisions to a Senate Judiciary Committee bill that weaken protections against forcing reporters to reveal their sources.

While White House officials claim the president still supports a strong shield law, the proposed revisions belie that argument. Obama should return to his earlier position. That is what's in the public's interest and what would best serve democracy and open government.

The Judiciary Committee, on which both Wisconsin senators sit, was supposed to take up this bill weeks ago but has kept delaying action. It is again on the committee's agenda for Thursday.

The critical issue is the balance between national security and the public's right to know.

Supporters of the bill recognize the need to protect legitimate security interests. But any shield law also needs to recognize that sometimes claims are made in the name of national security to cover up embarrassment or mistakes.

The Bush administration was only the latest example of government officials who used national security claims as cover; in that administration's case, of prisoner abuse, secret CIA prisons for terrorists and warrantless wiretapping.

The public learned of those abuses through the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Protecting those sources of confidential information is essential to obtaining such information.

The Senate bill and a measure passed in March in the House by voice vote would rely on a federal judge to decide when security is not really at risk. That strikes the right balance. The White House revisions would have judges defer to the administration's view of when and if a news leak presents a significant security leak. That stacks the deck in the government's favor; it is neither reasonable nor fair.

It's in the public's interest to move the bill forward without the administration's revisions. Obama should recognize that. If he instead prefers to hold on to the prerogatives of power, the Judiciary Committee — including Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl — should make sure the public and confidential sources get the protection they deserve.

REPRINTED FROM THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM