Editorial
Shield law no answer
The role of the mass media in
American society will fall under in
creasing scrutiny in coming months.
With increasing regularity federal
officials are launching new attacks on
freedom of the press. But in responding to
the attacks, many journalists are over
reacting. In the long run such over
reaction could be more dangerous than the
present problem.
In recent weeks journalists across the
country have been imprisoned for refusing
to release names of news sources. Most
have been jailed on contempt charges for
refusing to release names to secret grand
juries. Contempt charges are not
restricted by law in these cases and some
are sitting in jail facing indefinite sen
tences.
The courts, now firmly packed with
Nixonian constructionists, have offered no
remedies.
The sanctity of the confidential news
source is an American press tradition.
Many of the most significant news stories
in the history of journalism have resulted
from confidential news leaks. These leaks
inevitably dry up when there is a chance
confidentiality will be violated. As leaks
vanish, the public’s right to know is
diminished.
As the number of journalists jailed
increases so too do the efforts intensify to
pass a journalist’s shield law at both state
and federal levels.
Such a law, its proponents claim,
would protect the journalist’s sources. In
brief, such a law would allow a journalist
to refuse to divulge the source of his in
formation on a particular matter if he or
she thought it would put the source in
jeopardy or would hurt the journalist’s
ability to gather more information. While
few demand that this privilege be ab
solute, it would be similar to present laws
that apply to doctors, lawyers and
members of the clergy.
The Emerald believes that such laws
are dangerous and could cause more
problems than they would solve.
The passage of a shield law for jour
nalists would enable Congress or the
legislature to define what “the press” is.
Any statute dealing with privilege would
have to define who is to be allowed to claim
it.
It would be far too easy for legislators
to omit student newspapers, alternative
publications such as the Augur,
newsletters and pamphlets. None of these
could be left out if the law was to adhere to
the spirit of the First Amendment. But
devising a law which would adhere to the
spirit will be incredibly difficult.
And then there are the necessary
exception clauses. It is inconceivable
journalists would ask for absolute
privilege, much less get it. Even doctors
and lawyers don’t have this sort of
protection. If there are to be exceptions,
then what are they?
Phrases such as “in the compelling
public interest” or “in the matter of a
capital crime” are too vague and too easy
to insert in a shield law. But once the
ambiguities are statutory, the hassle in the
courts just starts again and journalists will
be caught in the middle. One step forward
and two steps back is not progressive
legislation.
And even in states where a shield law
exists, journalists may still be unfairly
prosecuted. California journalist William
Farr was immune from prosecution when
he refused to reveal the names of his
sources for a story dealing with the
Manson family. He was protected by the
California shield law—that is until he quit
the newspaper business. As soon as Farr
resigned from his newspaper, he was
thrown in jail for refusing to reveal his
sources.
That can hardly be construed as
protection.
If the shield law is not an answer then
what is the remedy? It may sound like an
easy out to say “something must be done
but we don’t know what”. But in this case
it is even worse to say “something is better
than nothing”.
Until an adequate solution can be
devised which protects newsmen and at
the same time preserves press autonomy
from government, journalists will simply
have to tough it out. There is precedent for
that in this country—precedent going back
three hundred years.
Compromise may be the basis of
legislative politics. But to accept com
promise in this situation could cause a
dangerous erosion of First Ammendment
rights.
Letters . .
Learning things
Gosh, Rita J. Riche ns tein (Letters,
December 5) you say that your education
stops when the library closes nightly at 10
p.m. I’d say just the opposite.
I would think you would have:
1. Learned to work on papers earlier.
2. Learned to avoid this unagreeable
situation by rearranging your schedule.
3. Learned what channels might be used
to appeal the early closing time.
4. Learned that the insufficient funds
argument is not as hollow as it sounds.
5. Learned that many of us agree that
the 10 o’clock closing time seems to be the
worst possible action that can be taken
even if funds are short.
Starting right around library closing
time, it seems to me you should have been
learning all kinds of things.
Joseph VidaU
Marketing
One who delivers
My worst fears from election eve two
months ago have come true. Nixon’s
landslide election mandate is not the big
show of support he thinks it is.
Mr. Four-more-years thinks that all the
silent majority have come out of their
shells and spoken, how could he be so
wrong? The average citizen, as well as
student, goes by only what he hears. When
the freedom of the press disappears, so
goes the freedom of the individual. Mr.
McGovern lost because of political
mistakes, not mistakes in ideals. Bombing
has become the result of the election. I
pray the next four years teaches us the
difference between promiser and one
who delivers.
John S. Andrews
Junior, Political Science
IN 8e&0U(k)6 (?PPRg55IO(0 0e6AT COUSCIOViuetS ee6«T
I
m
•is
-c
s
eppoe&iou.
A4
I
i
*
PAcSfi- BfiSAT
zEpetuoto
0f6AT
Tftemv BesAT
1(0 TH6 ew
* ,p=-r
TH&JRV.
J'.
HOKUM.
IT WAS wr Wtfit
T«e 0£SltJOIU<5