Source Protection Serves Public

Tipped off about appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, reporters at The Washington Post relied on dozens of sources, including many who asked to remain anonymous, to document the unnecessary suffering that wounded soldiers endured at the hospital in 2007.

The Post's stories forced the Defense Department and the White House to take immediate steps to improve patients' care at the hospital.

That's just one example of why journalists' ability to promise anonymity to sources is vital to the public interest. From the Watergate scandal to the BP oil spill in the Gulf, journalists have turned to anonymous sources, sources who otherwise would fear reprisals, to expose corruption, mismanagement and abuses of power.

But, under current law, journalists also can be — and are — threatened with jail time and heavy fines for refusing to reveal their sources' identities. Such threats have a chilling effect on both sources and the news media.

Legislation now before the Senate, the Free Flow of Information Act, would shield journalists from overzealous prosecutors who use the threat of jail time as a hammer to shatter the bonds forged between journalists and sources.

Two Republican members of Indiana's congressional delegation, Sen.

Richard Lugar and Rep. Mike Pence, were among the bill's original authors. And President Barack Obama is among the many Democrats who back the proposal.

Despite such bipartisan support, the legislation has run into several obstacles on its path through Congress. The latest centers on concerns raised after the recent publication of classified war documents on WikiLeaks, a foreign-based website.

Critics charge that the website created a threat to national security and endangered U.S. military personnel. As a result, Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are drafting an amendment that would exclude websites such as WikiLeaks from the bill's legal protections.

It's important to understand, however, that WikiLeaks may be immune from a U.S. federal subpoena because its operations are based in other countries.

Regardless, the House-approved version of the bill already would enable courts to balance the public's interest in watchdog journalism with national security needs.

The full Senate needs to finally approve the bill when it resumes work next month. Ensuring that journalists and their sources are protected from overly aggressive prosecutors is in the public's best interest and the nation's.

REPRINTED FROM THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM