Protecting the press.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Journalists don't always live up to the high standards set by America's founders, who enshrined freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But when reporters courageously and ethically perform their vital watchdog function, when they expose wrongdoing and abuse, when they uncover fraud and neglect, democracy is strengthened, and the powerful are held account- able.

Crucial to the exercise of that watchdog role is the ability of journalists to cultivate and protect confidential sources. The greatest obstacle that powerful people and institutions can erect to the revelation of secret misdeeds is the ability to easily expose the identities of the whistle-blowers who disclose those secrets.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have recognized the importance of protecting reporters from subpoenas that would lead to the compelled disclosure of confidential sources and unpublished material. It's time to extend that protection - which already exists for priests, psychotherapists and attorneys, among others - to journalists in the federal courts.

Bipartisan legislation to create a federal news media shield law is moving toward a vote in the Senate. The Free Flow of Information Act, sponsored by Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, offers journalists badly needed protection from the threat of jail or ruinous fines while recognizing that such protection can't be absolute.

The bill would require prosecutors or defendants in criminal cases to show that they had exhausted all alternative means of obtaining the needed information before a re- porter could be forced to testify. Additionally, a judge would have to rule that disclosure of the confidential source was in the public in- terest.

In civil cases, reporters could be ordered to reveal a confidential source only after a judge found disclosure to be ``critical to the successful completion of the civil action'' and ``nondisclosure ... would be contrary to the public interest.''

The bill also has been amended to address the government's national security concerns; prosecutors can compel journalists to testify about sources if that would prevent "imminent and actual harm to national security."

Still, the Justice Department remains adamantly opposed to a federal media shield law, calling it "bad public policy" that would impair the administration's ability "to effectively enforce the law and fight ter- rorism."

That's absurd. It may be bad public policy for one of the most secretive administrations in U.S. history, but there is nothing in the Free Flow of Information Act's numerous exceptions that would ever allow a news organization to protect a violent criminal or thwart a criminal investigation.

There is a very simple truth underlying the need for a federal media shield law. Fraud, corruption, abuse of power and any number of other bad behaviors that decent government officials or corporate officers might bring to the news media if their identities can be legally protected may continue unimpeded in the absence of such protection.

Whistle-blowers require confidentiality before they'll risk their careers to reveal the wrongdoing they've uncovered. It's time to give journalists the ability to honor that confidentiality without risking their own careers, or their freedom.