Bloggers Identity Revealed by Journalists - Shield Laws Should Protect Identity

The court cases that attempted to force journalist Matthew Cooper from Time Magazine into jail and landed Judith Miller from the New York Times behind bars for not revealing the names of their anonymous sources brought the issue of media shield laws back to the forefront.

Oftentimes news-breaking stories have been the result of information brought forth by interviewees who didn't feel comfortable revealing their identity. When instances such as these arise, journalists offer their sources the freedom of anonymity regardless of the lack of federal laws safeguarding this protection. While 31 states and the District of Columbia do have laws that allow journalists to hide the identity of a possible source, these journalists can be subjected, if a case makes it into a federal court, to break their promise by divulging the names of sources.

According to the First Amendment Center Web site "more than four million government officials - local, state and federal - will be subject to signing non-disclosure agreements, violation of which comes with harsh penalties, including jail time." For these employees, anonymity is imperative. Until a federal law is put into place, journalists claim that if "reporters are compelled to disclose the identity of their sources, the sources will dry up" (firstamendmentcenter.org). If the most famous of anonymous informants, Deep Throat, had any inclination that his identity would not remain safeguarded, it is quite probable that the Watergate scandal would not have been broken open. In the same regard, these news-breaking stories, important to the public's best interest, may have gone uncovered, supporting the journalistic outcry for shield laws.

Although the need to protect confidentiality may seem cut and dry to many, there are those who will argue that the topic matter stubbornly lies in a gray area. Bloggers seem to be the dark cloud casting shadows on the issue. But long before the internet, similar amateur journalists plagued the decision-making process. In the 1972 Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes, the justices were virtually split down the middle. Geoffrey R. Stone, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago paraphrased the outcome of the case:

"The majority noted that if it recognized a First Amendment privilege for journalists, it would then have to decide as a matter of constitutional law who is and who is not a 'journalist'," Stone said. "The majority explained that it would be very harmful for the Court to undertake such an inquiry, because it would be the equivalent of 'licensing' the press, something that has always been anathema to the First Amendment."

It's understandable that one might pose the question as to whether online bloggers or first-time, unpublished authors should be protected in the same fashion as working magazine or newspaper journalists. But, if bringing these recreational editorialists onto the scene only causes uncertainty as to who should be sheltered by shield laws, no one will be safe. It's unfair to keep this protection from those who may benefit from it on a regular, on-the-job basis.

Under current conditions, journalists - defined as those gainfully employed by a periodical or publication - aren't as appreciated as they once were. Many argue that reporters abuse their authority and don't display the objectivity that their choice of career dictates. So those relying on internet bloggers for their news feel justified. Whatever the case, the general public must consider what would happen if journalists didn't gamble with the law in regard to anonymity. If citizens feel that they are already in the dark as far as government operations, for example, are concerned, and if journalists were to turn down every source that requires this anonymity, news-breaking stories may become few and far between. Will bloggers then finally be revealed as the diarists that they truly are?