Cross posted at The Smoking Room
The opening of this story on a renewed federal push for a reporters’ shield law – protecting them under most circumstances from divulging anonymous sources – has one of the most inappropriate and sycophantic leads in a mainstream outlet I’ve ever seen:
Watergate, the prisoner abuse scandal at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib jail, tobacco companies making cigarettes more addictive, and the Enron debacle – each of these instances of wrongdoing was exposed by journalists with the help of insiders who provided information under the cloak of anonymity.
Fine, a little background. But this is too much:
Whistle-blowers, together with the reporters they trusted, have shed light on corruption in government and business since before the nation’s founding. Reforms such as the prohibition of child labor and unsafe food were instituted in the wake of such exposés.
A little heavy on the gushing praise for leak-driven reporting, perhaps? This would be no big deal in a newsmagazine or alternative paper, but Newsday is supposed to be a mainstream daily. Before the reporter even gets into his ostensible subject, describing what’s in federal legislation and the reaction it’s getting, he’s made his opening debate statement: Shield laws are good. Shield laws are necessary. Our way of life can’t endure without shield laws. He goes on with a too-long quote from another journalist, Newsweek’s editor and head of the lead magazine editors association. Then more history – 99 shield laws proposed since the first in 1929, and “all failed in part because of disagreements within the media” (plus reticence by Congress to tell constituents reporters deserve more speech protection than them). We don’t get any description of the bills until the 8th paragraph.
That said, I haven’t decided what to think of a federal shield law. Our news surely would miss a lot of material, some of it pretty important and some total crap of little use to anyone outside New York/Washington/LA. The bigger problem, as Slate’s Jack Shafer and others have noted, is a culture of journalism addicted to anonymous sources. It’s all too easy for journalists to get comfy with certain anonymous sources who may have severe conflicts of interest the public will never know about. I’m not sure a federal shield law either would spur editors to tell reporters, “Don’t abuse your privilege, let’s police ourselves,” or lead to more laziness in sourcing.
But there’s no excuse for such blatant cheerleading high in a story in favor of a piece of legislation. I hope Newsday’s editorial page has a few letters from readers protesting the slanted angle, but that would assume plenty of readers care much either way on shield legislation.
I’m a tech journalist who’s making a TV show about a college newspaper.