Editorial
Daily Herald (Provo, Utah)
Oct. 03, 2005
Excerpt:
It seems nowadays that terrorism is a convenient bogeyman
to trot out whenever one is in danger of losing a political argument.
It’s a handy ploy. After all, who wants to be seen as a terrorist
sympathizer?There’s no evidence to suggest that reporters have hamstrung any
terrorism case by refusing to divulge information. Harassing reporters
through the legal system is the sign of a lazy attorney who wants
someone else to do his legwork. Why go through the hassle of trying to
find information yourself if you can just drag a journalist into court
and force him to talk?Our laws already allow clergy, doctors and attorneys to keep
conversations between themselves and penitents/patients/clients
confidential, and nobody’s complaining that this has hurt prosecutors’
ability to go after terrorism. A greater public good is achieved when
people can confide in a spiritual leader, a physician or a lawyer
without fear of disclosure. The same goes for journalists and their
sources.There are many stories that likely would not have come out if
journalists couldn’t extend confidentiality to sources. The Watergate
cover-up, steroid use by professional baseball players, misconduct by
cigarette makers, the Salt Lake Olympic bribery scandal and the
Pentagon Papers.Rather than hurt the public, a shield law protects the public by encouraging the truth to come forth.
