New York Times reporter James Risen has asked the Justice Department to drop his subpoena to testify in the trial of former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling for leaking classified information to Risen. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled earlier in the summer that Risen was not protected under the First Amendment from complying with the subpoena. In his request to the Justice Department Risen cited their recent proposal governing reporters’ testimony in trials that reporters should only be called on as “a last resort”. (The Washington Post, August 7, 2013, by Erik Wemple)
A number of editorials have recently made the case for a federal shield law and for keeping reporters out of the courtroom. The New York Times Public Editor Maragaret Sullivan, July 27, 2013 wrote, “The [Risen] case has real-world consequences not only for journalists but for all Americans. It is part of a troubling trend that includes unprecedented numbers of criminal investigations involving leaked information; the obtaining of reporters’ phone records; and even one government claim that a journalist ‘aided and abetted’ a leak. Mr. Risen says investigative reporting that includes the use of confidential sources is ‘the only way to keep the government accountable’.”
A July 28 Chicago Tribune editorial called for a federal shield law to protect reporters bringing vital information about government activities to the public, “It’s the job of the press to ferret out secrets, which often are essential to give citizens an accurate understanding of what is being done in their name. If the government can’t prevent leaks, it shouldn’t impose on journalists to make up for its failure.”
In the meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee is pounding out a shield law to protect the news media from being forced to reveal sources. They have yet to deal with the thorny issue of who is considered a journalist in the tech age of ubiquitous bloggers. (Associated Press, August 1, 2013, by Henry C. Jackson)