By Ryan Blethen
The Seattle Times
Jan. 20, 2006
Excerpt:
[…] A shield law has to define who is a journalist. How is that
precisely done with technology stretching the definitions of journalism?Once journalists are classified, a door opens for future legislation of
journalism. I cannot help but imagine what happens when [Washington
Attorney General Rob] McKenna, and others, like King County Prosecutor
Norm Maleng, who support McKenna, are replaced by politicians who would
use the shield law as a way to regulate the press.The First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from
making laws that infringe on the press, is not a guarantee. Like
everything in the Constitution, press infringements can be debated,
interpreted and changed. A number of seemingly benign additions to the
shield law could calcify around the First Amendment and transform the
press into a spectator of the defeat of democracy. […]The use of unnamed sources is necessary but abused. Some stories would
never be written if it were not for a journalist assuring a source
confidentiality. Problem is, the unnamed source has crept into the
daily report with frightening regularity. Mundane stories, especially
from Washington, D.C., are littered with quotes by Somebody Close to
the Situation. […]Instead of relying on politicians for protection, journalists should
put their trust in the First Amendment, which has worked thus far, and
practice responsible journalism that puts the reader first.
