McCain Wrong to Support Media Shield Law
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | April 14, 2008
This is the essential fact: our Big Media are the biggest lobby in town.
The
Bush Administration is absolutely right―and Senator John McCain is absolutely
wrong―on the issue of the so-called “media shield law” before Congress. The
purpose of the law is to enable people claiming to be journalists to hide their
anonymous sources of information even when those sources are involved in or
have knowledge of criminal or terrorist activity.
The
bill would also give federal protection to anonymous sources in and out of
government who hide behind the media in order to destroy or damage the lives of
innocent people.
President
Bush has threatened a veto but the media are counting on Congress to override
it.
The
bill puts in the hands of federal politicians and judges the ability to define
a “legitimate” journalist or blogger who is deserving of federal protection. As
such, it restricts First Amendment rights to a certain group of people
currently in favor with federal authorities.
In
endorsing the bill, Senator McCain told an Associated Press forum, “There will
be times, I suspect, when I will wonder again if I should have supported this
measure. But I trust in your integrity and patriotism that those occasions won’t
be so numerous that I will, in fact, deeply regret my decision.”
This
seems to be a big roll of the dice with our lives on the line.
My
reading of the First Amendment says that Congress should stay out of the
business of deciding who and who is not a journalist. My reading of the
Constitution is that journalists are like everybody else―citizens of the United
States―and that when they have knowledge of criminal activity, they should
disclose that to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Why should the media
be above the law?
The
answer is that they have the power and ability to work their will on the
Congress. Fortunately, the Bush Administration is standing in their way.
Time
is running out. Under media pressure, one version of the bill passed the House by a vote of 398-21.
Only 21 members had the courage to oppose the demands of the Big Media lobby.
The Senate version (S.2035) passed the
Senate Judiciary Committee on October 4. The vote was 15-2. Only Republican
Senators Sam Brownback and Jon Kyl had the courage to vote against it.
Media
lobbyists are now demanding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid schedule a
full Senate vote and pass the bill and send it to the President’s desk.
McCain’s endorsement was a major feather in their cap. Democrats Obama and
Hillary Clinton can be expected to fall in line.
By
the term “media,” we are talking about the biggest guns in the business. As
noted by Senator Patrick Leahy, a supporter of the bill, “The Free Flow of
Information Act is strongly supported by more than 50 news media and journalism
organizations, including the National Newspaper Association, the Coalition of
Journalists for an Open Government, the Magazine Publishers of America and the
National Press Club. The call for action extends to editorial pages across the
country, including the Washington Post, Arizona Republic,
Salt Lake Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times.”
Considering
all of this high-powered media support, is it any wonder that voices opposed to
the bill like Accuracy in Media have been suppressed?
It’s
officially called the “Free Flow of Information Act” but we call it the
“Special Rights for Journalists Act.” There are many problems with the bill,
but one of the most glaring is the failure to adequately define a “journalist.”
The media arm of a terrorist group might be able to qualify, depending on what
a federal judge rules, as a protected organization.
The
bill says, “The term ‘journalism’ means the regular gathering, preparing,
collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or
publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or
international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to
the public.”
What
does “regular” mean? Would a blogger qualify if he or she posted material every
other day or every other week? Does this apply to the media arm of al-Qaeda? To
Al-Jazeera?
Consider
that federal officials have indications that a “journalist” has knowledge of
terrorist activity, based on his or her sources in a terrorist organization.
Under the media shield law, the “journalist” could claim these are confidential
sources and refuse to provide evidence of criminal activity that threatens the
lives of the public. The bill has exceptions for national security or bodily
harm, but the burden of proving that the protected information has to be known
is put on those responsible for stopping terrorist or criminal activity. It may
be too late to save lives with this bill in place.
One
incident that sparked renewed interest in the legislation was when Judith
Miller of the New York Times went to jail rather than reveal her sources in the
so-called CIA leak case. It is strange that the liberal media cite this case as
justification for a shield law to protect anonymous sources. The sources in
this case were Bush Administration and other officials accused of illegally
naming a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, for the purpose of damaging her husband,
Joe Wilson, a Democratic Party operative commissioned by the CIA to investigate
a possible Iraqi nuclear deal.
Ironically,
a media shield law might have protected the anonymity of those same Bush
officials, who were merely providing information to the press about the motives
behind a controversial CIA mission. In the end, of course, those officials were
never found guilty of violating any law against naming intelligence operatives.
Instead, former vice-presidential aide Lewis Libby was merely found guilty of
obstructing the prosecutor’s search for answers. For her part, Miller was
released after making a deal. However, she was ostracized by her colleagues for
using Bush officials as sources and left the Times.
The
media claim a shield law would help them protect sources of information about
government wrongdoing. But the Watergate scandal was disclosed without a
federal shield law in place.
One
real danger of a media shield law comes when the wrongdoing involves those
anonymous government sources leaking false information to the press and then
wanting to escape accountability for their malicious actions. Former government
scientist Steven Hatfill was falsely named in the media as a suspect in the
anthrax murders case and his reputation and career were destroyed. He went to
court years ago to get the names of the government officials who targeted him.
Under current law, even though they are stalling him, Hatfill has a reasonable
chance of forcing these journalists to provide this information so that he can
hold those officials accountable. A federal media shield law would make it
impossible to get those names and for him to get justice.
We
have written critically about this legislation for years but have been denied
the opportunity to testify against it. This demonstrates the power that the
media have over our elected officials. Simply put, when the matter before
Congress is something that directly affects them, the Big Media will make sure
that the American people are not given two sides of the story.
This
is the essential fact: our Big Media are the biggest lobby in town. They not
only hire lobbyists; they use their media properties to lobby. And no campaign
finance law will ever apply to their editorials, news stories and commentaries.
Fortunately,
the Justice Department is fighting back against this massive media blitz. It
has launched a
web page with information about the dangers of the legislation. They represent the views
of the law enforcement officials and prosecutors trying to save lives―our
lives.
Senator
McCain said supporting the bill was a close call. “It is, frankly, a license to
do harm, perhaps serious harm,” he said. “But it also is a license to do good;
to disclose injustice and unlawfulness and inequities; and to encourage their
swift correction.”
Have
the media earned our trust? You’ve got to be kidding.
Isn’t
it interesting that McCain referred to this bill as a “license” for the media?
I thought the First Amendment was supposed to guard against federal schemes to
license the press. In any case, the media already have a “license” to do good.
It’s called the First Amendment.
By
the way, the First Amendment is supposed to apply to us, too, not just the favored
few who qualify as “media.” In this new media age, everyone has the potential
to be a journalist. But the media shield bill will necessarily limit the
definition of the term.
Tell
your Senators: no special rights for
journalists. Don’t tamper with the First Amendment. Don’t give the media a
license to do serious harm.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at
3 Comments | Post a Comment
PLEASE READ THE JUSTICE DEPT.’S LETTER! (Linked in article text: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/media-shield.htm)
Tom Gjelton, pentagon correspondant for NPR, recently spoke about the need for this Shield.
However, given his willingness to spout words directly from the pentagon, it seems to me that the Shield is a problem-reaction-solution trick to rob us even more honesty. The military complex already avoids the truth enough as it is.
If passed, they can hide behind journalists, too, robbing us forever of any trust we can have with our own dept. of defense!
We don’t need a shield bill. We need braver reporters and more whistleblowers! It is getting very serious, and they must speak out now before it is impossible to do so!
April 20 at 6:40 pm | #1 | Link
WE NEED TO BE VOCAL ON THIS. This law, if enacted, will affect facets of the justice system beyond terrorist information. This would be a giant leap in destroying one most important foundations of the justice of a free society: witness accountability. The french revolution’s blood bath resulted in part from this one pivitol issue. This is a pillar of all Roman based justice systems. A witness must be willing to face the one he bears witness against.