47 Comments - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:29 am: ===Rich your server is still on daylight time. Wish we were too.=== Thanks for reminding me. I’m gonna have to wait until tonight to adjust it, though. It’ll screw up the comment flow. - Loop Lady - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:31 am: Sources should be protected and reporters must not be compelled to give up their first ammendment rights…I beleive that the government has their nose in everyones private business anyway, but to single out reporters is unjust, even in a post 9/11 world…Freedom of the press and a fair and unbiased media in the US already imperiled thanks to Ashcroft and the Bush White House…don’t give away your rights, ’cause you probably won’t get ‘em back sez a friend of mine with an ACLU membership card… - YouNeverSawMe - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:50 am: I think rights of journalists to NOT have to reveal their sources must be protected, but… I worry that in this day of TMZ.com and all the many other fast journalism with out a care or ounce of concern for the validity of their statements (but more so in how much attention in garners and how many advertising spots it can generate), that there needs to be some type of disclaimer or warning placed out on articles that don’t have a solid background of information? - Ghost - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 10:50 am: Their should be no such law! Fitxgerald is right, their is now indication at all that speech has been chilled. Imagine the incredible abuse this creates if such a law is passed. Suppose a reporter completly makes up a story. Their have been a number of recent investigative reports found to be made up or false. This give reporters a free hand to make up stories, then claim the existance of a “confidential” source. Since the source need not be revealed, what keep reporters in check!! Also the 1st ammendemnt and freedom of speech have nothing to do with shielding criminal activity. No member of our society should be allowed to protect and shield criminals or criminal activity. Illinois and the Federal government have whistler blower protection laws, these provide all the protection that a source needs. there is no need to provide an additional shield vis-a-vis the reporter. If the source is in danger, State and Federal law provide them their protections. If the whistleblowers conduct is not protected by law, then either we have determined such conduct is reprehensible and not to be protected, or we need to expand the protection already in place. their is no need for such a cart blanche shield for reporters. - kimsch - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:20 am: A federal shield law for journalist should not be passed or signed. I know the argument is that “people won’t speak to journalists if there is no assurance of anonymity,” thus chilling the source’s speech. But that is a canard. Journalists should not have “privilege” as doctors, lawyers and, clergy have. Currently, without such a shield law, a journalist who quotes a source as “a source close to _______ who wishes to remain anonymous as the source is not authorized to talk about _____,” or similar wording is not subpoenaed to find out who that source was. When that same unnamed source may have information material to a crime, the journalist should try to get the source to voluntarily go to the authorities. If the authorities find out about the possibility of materiality from the journalist’s story, and the source has not gone to the authorities, subpoenas should be an option. - A Citizen - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:24 am: Reporters are not above the law - if law enforcement needs the information in pursuit of an investigation they should get it from whomever has it, reporter, editor, or man on the street. Also the over use of “anonymous” sources is becoming very tiresome, makes me seriously doubt the reporters credibility as well as that of the story. - A Citizen - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:27 am: Rich your server is still on daylight time. Wish we were too. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:42 am: Generally, I oppose a federal shield law. However, my non-lawyer reading of the law passed is that it’s not as bad as it could be. I have been both a federal whistleblower and a journalist who uses confidential sources to report on closed meetings. Prior to the passing of a federal shield law federal judges had discretion about when prosecutors could compel journalists to divulge confidential sources. There is very little evidence judges failed to properly balance the concerns the prosecutor and the First Amendment. However, a carte blanche shield law could be seriously abused by bad actors in government. For example, when a whistleblower raises issues of corruption, the corrupt powerful people being exposed often try to sully the reputation of the whistleblower. A shield law could become an impenetrable fortress from which corrupt people in power could portray whistleblowers as foreign agents, drug addicts and child molesters without ever being held accountable. As I read the shield law, judges can still compel journalists to divulge sources if there are no other ways to get at the information. So, it seems like the law sorta codifies the status quo. It still comes down to the judgment of a federal judge. - Captain America - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:48 am: Don’t know all the ins and outs of this issue . I wouldn’t want to see reporters routinely jailed or held in contempt for failure to reveal their sources. However,I defintely believe that the incareration of Judith Miller and the forced testimony of Matt Cooper were entirely appropriate. On the other hand, I dont think reporters should be subject to investigation/prosecution when they break important stories that the government doesn’t want us to know about. - VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 11:53 am: The Plame Case, the Duke Rape Case, Haditha, the Gena 7 case, Hurricane Katrina, and other cases all point to journalism based on utter crap and hysteria. Mass media is proven wrong repeatedly over the past 10 years. We are not getting news from our news reporters enough to give them any credibility, let alone shield laws. What is fortunate in each of the media abuses listed above is how the truth finally came to surface. What is unfortunate is the number of media victims and the years of lies that have tainted each case. Nope. No shield laws for politicized reporting. Too much of what is passing for news is just that. We cannot allow them to make up their lies and then hide behind shield laws. Lets look at the fact. Fitzgerald is correct. What we need instead of shield laws is the opposite. The media should have to pay dearly for each Rathergate. Maybe they will return to simply reporting the facts instead of their biases. - Muskrat - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 12:05 pm: I would oppose such a law: –the situation it corrects (forced unveiling of sources) is rare; –the public distatse for such tactics is a pretty strong safeguard now; –One overlooked fact is that real criminals don’t talk to reporters - even “crime beat” guys tend to get secondhand (and therefore hearsay and unusable) info. Unnamed sources are almost always only useful in investigations like leaks; –any anonymous source with half a brain can remain truly anonymous to the reporter in the first place by using anaonymous e-mail, faxes, and other John LeCarre tricks; –The definition of Journalist will be impossible to define in these days of blogging, YouTube, etc.; –Reporters rely far too often on anonymous sources as it is, cutting back wouldn’t hurt; –the Judith Miller case strongly suggests some rpeoerters are just protecting cozy rfelationships, and many sources are just exploiting them for free anonymous runor placement. If and when prosecutors start to routinely abuse the power, then we can talk. - kimsch - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 12:15 pm: Muskrat, I wouldn’t be surprised if the “mainstream” journalists tried to get as narrow a definition of “journalist” as they could, thereby discounting bloggers, you-tuber’s, etc… - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 2:32 pm: I might be in the minority in the journalism field, but I’m against the idea of a federal shield law because of multiple of reservations I have about the idea. First, to have a shield law to protect journalists, the term “journalist,” or “reporter,” or “news gathering operation” would have to be defined. Frankly, this scares me and is something that could end up restricting speech even more than expanding it. User kimsch reflects my thoughts that traditional mainstream media institutions will try to use the shield law to restrict free speech on the Internet and destroy citizen-based media. Why should the NYPost’s gossip page have more protections than PerezHilton.com or Gawker? Why should the NYT have more protection than InstaPundit or Wonkette? Is Google News or Yahoo! News a news gathering organization? How about YouTube? Or even social networking Web sites like Facebook? We live in an era now where news gathering isn’t a professionalized medium anymore and the line’s becoming blurred as to who wears the hat of “journalist.” Do we really want legislators and judges deciding the definition of news and reporters? I say no, because that’s much more scary than being in a profession without a shield law. I could never understand why journalists need greater protection or rights than the public. If journalism is about extending the public’s right to know, then they ought to be fighting to expand their protections to the public, or at least remain equal. That’s constitutional fairness. Is it difficult to do your job as a journalist without these protections? Probably, but other jobs are hard to do as well, and the government isn’t obligated to make it easier for those industries, too. The greatest problem, in my opinion, in the tug-of-war between journalism and government is the concept of access to public records. There needs to be better enforcement, tougher penalties and greater ease of use to obtain this information. This is a real concern and something that can easily apply to everyone. The shield law, by comparison, is too narrow in scope and creates more problems. Here’s an example of why shield laws could be harmful. Not too long ago, Josh Wolf, an anarchist blogger (who ended up becoming a redefined media darling for “free press” rights), spent time in prison for not giving up video of a protest. He wasn’t employed by a traditional media source, but still claimed that he should be protected because he was protecting confidential sources. Imagine this scenario transfered over to something more violent. A person who’s not officially a part of the traditional media runs a blog that posts his YouTube videos about gang life. One day he’s with people who commit a violent crime, has it on video, but obscures the identities of those who participated — because he promised them confidentially. Should he have to turn over the tape, unedited, to authorities as a witness to a crime? Or is he protected under a shield law? This is the dilemma that journalism faces as it incorporates more independent media contributors. Either everyone — and I do mean everyone — is protected, or we have to start having tight definitions, registration lists and government press certifications for who is protected. Personally, I’d rather live with the consequences of an unregulated system without a shield law than with the government offering “protection” while they decide who’s on their list of approved media. - Anon - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 3:39 pm: What reporters want is a privilege rule unlike anything lawyers, doctors or clergy have presently. Among those three professions, privilege keeps a lawyer, doctor or clergy from disclosing what they have been told in confidence. A reporter, on the other hand, wants to take sensitive, confidential information and publish it. Let’s look at an example. You are a high-ranking public official who has engaged in consensual sex with someone other than your spouse. Unbeknownst to you is the fact that your illicit partner has AIDS. Worried that you may have been exposed to AIDS, you counsel your doctor for medical advice, your clergy for spiritual guidance, and your lawyer because your spouse kicked you out of the house. None of these people can tell anyone anything unless you waive your privilege by spilling the story yourself. Your illicit partner, on the other hand, picks up the phone and calls a reporter. The reporter exercises his privilege, publishes the information with immunity, your personal life has been exposed, and you can’t do much of anything about it. Our society grants privilege to those who have advanced degrees in medicine, law and theology. Doctors and lawyers pass rigorous state-administered examinations before they can practice. The clergy, in several instances, have to take solemn vows. A reporter, on the other hand, can be anyone hired for the task. Equally, a reporter’s motivation is in conflict. Unlike doctors, lawyers or clergy, who are in the business to help people in a variety of sensitive ways, reporters are in the business of selling newspapers. Once the state begins to professionally license individuals who have Masters-degrees or better in journalism, and becomes a legislative requirement before any news director can hire them to be a general assignment reporter at the Anna-Jonesboro Advertiser, I’ll entertain the idea of extending privilege. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 3:41 pm: ===What reporters want is a privilege rule unlike anything lawyers, doctors or clergy have presently.=== Except we’re in the Constitution, unlike doctors. - Anon - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 3:47 pm: Then subject yourself to professional licensing like lawyers, who wrote the Constitution. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 3:54 pm: Licensure would be an abridgement of freedom of the press. If you’d like to live in a nation that licenses journalists, perhaps the old Soviet Union would be more your cup of tea. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 3:56 pm: Or Cuba. - kimsch - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:04 pm: Also, Doctor/Lawyer/Clergy privilege is one of privacy more than anything else. Journalistic privilege would be no such thing as the object is to publish whatever it is, not keep it private. publish : to make generally known; to make public announcement of… (m-w.com) - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:05 pm: I fail to see how the lack of a shield law abridges speech or the press. The First Amendment is a legal defense. The government isn’t saying you can’t publish something you obtained from confidential sources. Nor are they saying they need any sort of prior review. In fact, you can publish anything you want to, and that’s what the Constitution protects. What this issue deals with is the subpoena and grand jury process and whether journalists have to participate in it. This has nothing to do with publication or prior review. Journalists love to argue that without a shield law, they won’t be able to do their jobs, which is absurd to even suggest. There’s no censorship taking place when there’s a lack of a shield law. This is not a First Amendment issue at all, because it doesn’t regulate or influence speech or publication. The Constitution provides protections, not licenses. These are two totally separate concepts. There’s no part of the First Amendment that creates exemptions for certain groups. Instead, it creates barriers the government cannot breach for all citizens. - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:08 pm: Licensure would be an abridgement of freedom of the press. And this is essentially what shield laws do. They determine the definition of the press and say to whom this privilege applies to. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:09 pm: I mostly agree, Kiyoshi. I don’t want the government defining who is and isn’t a reporter. - One_Mcmad - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:17 pm: - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 3:41 pm: ===What reporters want is a privilege rule unlike anything lawyers, doctors or clergy have presently.=== Except we’re in the Constitution, unlike doctors. It couldn’t be explained any better than the above. Pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution, it allows and protects: 1. The right of citizens to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 2. The right of the Press to freely report the news and or the whistleblowers actions in exerting his or her firstamendment right to free speech by petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. 3. Which all equals protections for whistleblowers and the press to report the whistleblowers information that equates to NEWS. No one in the United States, this free country that we live in, should be against Shield Laws for reporters as shield laws are apart of protections for constitutionally protected free speech. Although there exist “whistleblower protections” in addition to the constitution, there is no “reporter protection”, outside of the constitution, for reporters who report whistleblower allegations (NEWS) Further, Patrick Fitzgerald himself set the bar and the need for sheild laws for reporters by sending a reporter to jail for failing to divulge her source. If he were against sheild laws he should have never jailed Judith Miller but “granted her immunity like he did the jurors in the George Ryan trial”. - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:20 pm: I just get sick of the media always oversimplifying the issue at hand and confusing people under the rhetoric of “The government is jailing reporters! OMG! Censorship!” Reporters jailed for protecting sources’ confidentially aren’t taking a stand to protect the First Amendment. They’re being jailed because they’ve created this mythical exemption for themselves under the disguise of journalism ethics that keeps them from participating in the legal system. The way I see it, if you believe your role as a journalist is to be an advocate for democracy, that means obeying the laws we have. Now, once the government starts jailing reporters because of something you published, starts shutting down presses, filtering the Internet or jamming broadcast airwaves, yeah, we have a problem because that’s a legitimate violation of the First Amendment. - whistleblower - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:32 pm: Not having a sheild law places fear into the hearts of reporters and their bosses to report government corruption for fear the government would retaliate against them for the news they publish or air especially if the government is apart of the coverage in a detrimental way. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:41 pm: whistleblower, can you name a case where government officials have used the absence of a shield law to retaliate against journalists? - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 4:46 pm: Not having a sheild law places fear into the hearts of reporters and their bosses to report government corruption for fear the government would retaliate against them for the news they publish or air especially if the government is apart of the coverage in a detrimental way. Really? I seem to remember that Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate before Washington, D.C., had a shield law, which wasn’t around until 1992. - Ghost - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:12 pm: Reporters are not seeking shield laws to protect themselves, technicaly the law is to protect the source. The reporter ends up being the conduit to the source. Whistleblowers are already shielded from retaliation under State and Federal Law. Many of these laws additionaly provide finacial rewards to whistleblowers. A shield law is un-needed as whistleblowers do not need more protection. The first amendment does not protect fictious reporting. The greater danger to free speech is unacountable reporters using shield laws to make up news. - Anon - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:26 pm: Rich Miller said… “Licensure would be an abridgement of freedom of the press.” Fine, I will accept that point. Now, defend how you would get around my original ethical conflict of interest. You are a high-ranking public official who has engaged in consensual sex with someone other than your spouse. Unbeknownst to you is the fact that your illicit partner has AIDS. Worried that you may have been exposed to AIDS, you counsel your doctor for medical advice, your clergy for spiritual guidance, and your lawyer because your spouse kicked you out of the house. None of these people can tell anyone anything unless you waive your privilege by spilling the story yourself. Your illicit partner, on the other hand, picks up the phone and calls a reporter. The reporter exercises his privilege, publishes the information with immunity, your personal life has been exposed, and you can’t do much of anything about it. Seems like you’ve legislated yourself out of a slander, privacy, who-knows-what-else legal issue. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:28 pm: Shield laws have absolutely nothing to do with the libel law. Completely different stuff. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:35 pm: Source A tells Journalist B, under promise of confidentiality, something defamatory about Person C. Journalist B reports the allegation. Person C sues Journalist B, her/his publisher and John Doe (the source) for defamation. Could/would a shield law keep B from naming A in the case of C vs. B, et al? This is essentially the situation Wen Ho Lee is in. He was defamed by the U.S. Attorney’s office and the journalist in question won’t give up who spread the dirt on Lee. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:36 pm: …Adding… you wrote about publishing with “immunity.” Nobody is asking for immunity for what they publish. Libel is libel. What we’re talking about here is tossing a reporter in jail for refusing to tell the court who his/her source was. If it’s libelous, it’s also false. So, who cares who the source is? Your example makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:43 pm: Whistleblowers are already shielded from retaliation under State and Federal Law.–Ghost While technically true, these laws don’t work well in reality. Show me examples of whistleblowers who continued to get promoted along the career path they were on before they called the hotline. Many of these laws additionaly provide finacial rewards to whistleblowers. –Ghost These laws are inadequate for many types of corruption. For example, if a whistleblower reports that military recruiters are forging diplomas, what money gets saved? Often, reducing corruption involves spending more money, so the whistleblower payment system doesn’t work. If a whistleblower reports cover-ups of rape allegations, how much money does this save the government? whistleblowers do not need more protection.–Ghost Do you think there is an acceptable amount of corruption in government? The private sector? Do you want cases of fraud, waste and abuse reported more? Do you want whistleblowers to make these reports? - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:46 pm: Rich, if a whistleblower gets defamed by one of the higher-ups at his/her agency, s/he may care who defamed him/her. A defamed person may want the full story to come out to expose the generally evil nature of the corrupt people s/he had to deal with. And from a legal point of view, it may make the case more attractive to a plaintiff attorney to be able to add the government or corporation as a defendant. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:54 pm: S/he may care, but it has little to do with the point. If a story is libelous, then that’s it. - Vinron - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 5:54 pm: Maybe off-topic here — but why do we need a FEDERAL shield law? At least 30 states have a reporter’s shield law (including Illinois). Why get the feds involved? - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 6:03 pm: Vinron: The issue is that the shield laws in Illinois only apply to Illinois courts, not federal courts. This is what happened to Josh Wolf in California. While the California shield law protected him, the feds came in and started their own investigation concerning the protest they wanted his footage of. They claimed that since police vehicles damaged in the protest were funded in part by federal dollars, then they had jurisdiction to investigate and compel Wolf to hand over his footage. - Kiyoshi Martinez - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 6:09 pm: Funny tidbit about Josh Wolf’s case, if I’m correctly reading the federal shield law bill that’s before the legislature right now, it probably wouldn’t have protected him: COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person’ means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person. (Link) - Ivory-billed Woodpecker - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 6:35 pm: A lot of negativity here on shield laws, generally. Sounds like most would want the Ill. G.A. to repeal our “Reporter’s Privilege Act,” 735 ILCS 5/8-901 et seq. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 6:36 pm: Rich, I’m not sure what you mean, “If a story is libelous, then that’s it.” If somebody gets defamed in the media, it’s the beginning of a long journey to legally establish the truth. A shield law could be a barrier to someone wronged getting redress. - Old Elephant - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 7:34 pm: My journalism school professors always opposed shield laws. They argued that Freedom of Speech is a constitutional right that applies to all citizens. Anyone who wants to start a newspaper should have the right to do so and receive the same protections (and have the same responsibilities) as everyone else. Shield laws take us down a slipperly slope that inevitably leads to government determing who is or is not a “legitimate” journalist. Some guy with a fax machine and a lot of time on his hands, should have the same right to cover state government as “real journalists.” (Sound like anyone we know?) Their view (and mine) was always that a real journalist should never consider asking for special privileges or exemptions but, rather, should be willing to do the time instead of revealing a source. It’s a small price to pay for protecting the constitutional right for everyone to have freedom of speech. - irked irene - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 8:36 pm: great question/ccomments - RJW - Monday, Nov 5, 07 @ 8:42 pm: If a reporter has information relevant to a criminal investigation then the reporter should not be shielded from anything. If a reporter wants a story bad enough that they are willing to immerse themselves into something that gives them knowledge of a criminal act, and the person telling them is stupid enough to tell them, then the reporter should have no right or expectation that the information they have should be protected. - Aaron Slick - Tuesday, Nov 6, 07 @ 7:58 am: Personally, I am for a shield law. Investigative reporters are a necessary (and integral) part of the process required to root out corruption and wrongdoing. I have in the past confided to an investigative reporter because I realized that if I had to rely soley on our state and federal justice systems to correct or expose a wrong, it was likely that perhaps my decendants would be able to read about it in the history books someday(assuming it even happened). Look how long it took them to get George Ryan into a federal prison! I placed my trust in this investigative reporter who agreed to keep my name out of it. And, he did. I have also gotten to know the reporter and trust him based on my previous experience with him. He is an honorable man so I have also entrusted him with other information that I have picked up during the following years. I know in my heart that this reporter will divulge those facts that he feels will be helpful to authorities and yet he will protect my anonymity. Hence, I will continue to help him whenever I can. As far as the judicial authorities go, I don’t trust anybody in our state of Illinois. It is too political. I will trust the Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent that I have gotten to know over the past years but I find myself being somewhat guarded with him because I know that he will have to divulge my identity if it is absolutely necessary to get a conviction of “a person of interest”. My reporter acquaintance has gained my trust that he will never “throw me under the bus” as his source, no matter the consequences to his job or himself. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit for being a man of his word but I don’t think so. We need to protect The Press in order that they may do their necessary and important job. - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Nov 6, 07 @ 8:06 am: No, but they should start being held liable when they “report” falsehoods as facts, maliciously share reputation-destroying “opinions” which have no basis is fact, etc. - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Nov 6, 07 @ 8:13 am: And yes, while shield laws are “completely different stuff” from libel laws, don’t think for a minute that when pressed & sued, they will hide behind a “confidential source” as the basis of their “facts.” Finally, why are reporters and columnists who take money and favors to print things not subject to prosecution? A press badge is a virtual license to kill. - Vinron - Tuesday, Nov 6, 07 @ 10:34 am: Thanks Kiyoshi. I’m still wary about the possibility of federal and state investigations of the same matter, but that’s a broader topic (see Judge Phil Gilbert’s diatribe about meth prosecutions). What we are talking about is codifying Branzburg v. Hayes and modernizing it then? Although there is no federal shield law, reporters or journalists caught up in a federal investigation have whatever protections are provided by Branzburg, don’t they? I studied the Pawlaczyk decision in Illinois and have always been troubled by the fact that, as I read it, the prosecutor can make the reporter give up the source for a grand jury investigation (assuming they show they can’t get the info elsewhere). But a prosecutor has the discretion to empanel a grand jury — doesn’t that mean a grand jury trumps the reporter’s privilege? (Again assuming the state meets the other qualifications necessary to top the privilege). I like the shield law. I don’t like the fact that a journalist or news medium must be defined. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.