Wisconsin “Shield Law” for reporters up for a vote tomorrow

More than the average citizen, journalists have the tools at their disposal and the motivation to thoroughly scrutinize the goings on in City Hall. Which is why it is a key issue to allow them to maintain the full use of these tools in accomplishing their journalistic duties.

Recognizing this, legislators in Wisconsin have proposed a law to protect reporters.
The bill is called the “Whistleblower Protection Act” and was drafted in consultation with the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. (The Wisconsin Newspaper Association had been urging the passing of such a “shield law” for 20 years.) The bill goes up for a vote in the Wisconsin senate tomorrow.

Under the bill, judges could order reporters to produce information regarding a source’s identity only when it is “highly relevant” to the case. Attorneys would have to show they couldn’t get the information any other way and there was an overriding public interest in disclosing it. It also prohibits forcing the confidential source to testify in order to discover the identity of that person. Wisconsin already has court rulings offering some protections for reporters, but no state law.

Supporters of the bill argue that court precedent helps reporters, but it is not as strong as a law with clear guidance for judges. Supporters of the bill include Governor Jim Doyle, a former three-term attorney general, and the president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, who noted that journalists benefit form the bill, but the public benefits even more. “A lot of very important stories begin with tips from people who require confidentiality,” he stated.

The Wisconsin State Bar Association’s litigation section is on record against the bill, however, saying it would make it too difficult for parties in lawsuits to obtain non-confidential information from news organizations.

Most states already have Shield Laws. While there is no explicit federal protection, federal courts tend to find that journalists can keep private the names of their confidential sources. Kansas became the 38th to enact one last week. Should Wisconsin’s bill pass, it would take effect three months after being signed into law by the governor. If the bill passes, Wisconsin would become the 39th state to enact a law protecting journalists and their confidential sources.

Montana county stays transparent, but not without a fight

Citizens in Montana have had a hard time getting public information, but at least the courts are on their side.

A Billings Gazette reporter had requested in January to see a complaint that had been filed against a county elected official. The complaint prompted the Yellowstone County Commission to hire an independent investigator at taxpayer expense. The reporter’s request was for a copy of the complaint and investigation report, which didn’t identify the complaining party or other private citizens.

District Judge Susan Watters reaffirmed legal precedent by ordering Yellowstone County to produce the requested public documents, saying:

“It is the county’s responsibility to go through the documents and determine what can be released. I believe the county failed to complete their duty that was required of them when the request was made to release the documents.”

Billings Gazette was justifiably annoyed by the whole situation, with an editorial writer stating:

The law doesn’t say that citizens have to wait to see public documents until a court reviews them or wait till a government attorney reviews them. It doesn’t say that citizens have to file written requests or forms. The law says that public officials who have custody of the document are to make it available to the public.

The Gazette notes that the denial could not have been due to privacy concerns, since the newspaper asked for copies of documents that had been redacted to remove the complaining party’s identification. The conclusion, then, is that the government just wanted to withold information because it could.

It is absolutely too much hassle to have to sue the county for information it should be disclosing on its own. The implications are great: a reporter, working for a newspaper, has the resources and the motivation to pursue information until he or she gets it. But sunshine laws exist for regular citizens, too, not just full-time sleuths. In this case, openness won, but it’s just a reminder that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Where will we get news?

Regardless of what different people try to tell the American public about what is and isn’t news, and about how information should or shouldn’t be received, it’s clear that people will get information no matter what stands in their way. People don’t care if their local paper goes under. Why should they? Time and time again, experience has shown us that the investigative spirit of news reporting continues in whatever way it can.

For example, those who don’t consider Fox News “news” would still have found it a useful resource for the Van Jones debacle. Fox was the only major news organization to report on the former environmental adivisor’s inflamatory statements, which was ignored by such traditional media giants as The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS.

Another reason to not despair about the news is that blogs can handle it. It was the blog BigGovernment.com that broke the story about ACORN corruption. Even before that, before blogs were on the radar as a threat to traditional news outlets, blogs were being used to correct the news. It was through blogs that documents presented by CBS anchor Dan Rather that allegedly showed President Bush had evaded the draft were shown to be forgeries.

Obviously, there isn’t a shortage of news. And where the traditional media has faltered, new media has prevailed. Print media is in trouble; The President has declared that the Fox News Network is “talk radio”, and he hasn’t been not the only one to have expressed concerns about the proliferation of news on blogs.

Still, we’ve got it better than ever.

Let’s Bail Out 8-track Manufacturers, Too

Before MP3s, CDs, or cassette tapes, there were 8-tracks. But you don’t hear much about 8-tracks anymore, unless someone is being nostalgic or making a point.

What happened? In one word: competition. The emergence of cassette tapes, and the 8-tracks inability to compete, made the format obsolete. The reliability of early cassettes and the quality of the sound meant that 8-tracks had an advantage, but cassettes caught up and 8-tracks stayed the same. There was little reason to stick to the rigidity of of 8-tracks.

Same with Laserdisc. The “exciting” technology had higher quality image than its rivals. However, Laserdiscs cost more than VHS, and manufacturers refused to market recordable Laserdisc devices. The format died out because it refused to be flexible and cater to consumer’s needs.

Sound familiar?

President Obama is now hinting at giving newspapers a bailout. Why? He fears that only opinionated blogs will report news.

As far as the problem with “opinionated” perspectives, John Stossel makes a good point in Reason Magazine today summarized in the subtitle of the article, “Every reporter has political beliefs“. So whether you get a reporter or a blogger won’t make a difference—they’re going to be opinionated. But there certainly isn’t a shortage of news.

Consumers expect more, and different, and cheaper news than newspapers are currently providing. Of course, the old media formats make us feel nostalgic. (I don’t need to feel nostalgic, because I have a Laserdisc player at home.) But the question is, are they necessary?

That question could be best solved by looking at the progress of music and video delivery. Did music cease to exist because 8-tracks did? No, in fact, we now have more choices in portable music formats than ever, and formats that allow us to edit and make our own music. Was the quality of video threatened when people stopped buying Laserdisc? Hardly, and again, we have choices and editable formats as to how we receive our video.

Newspapers can survive if they learn from 8-tracks and Laserdisc: they need to remain reliable, meet the quality and timing of online news, and become responsive to consumer’s needs. This is why blogs flourished. Regardless, there is no danger in newspapers going bankrupt. Newspapers existed to solve a problem, and that was the problem of how to relay information across varying groups and locations. But those were different times. Now we have the internet, and people willing to take on the task of providing commentary and news on their own times. A bailout for newspapers is certainly not necessary to keep citizens informed.