Protecting the Rights of Journalists

Virtually all states provide, either by statute or by judicial decision, protections to journalists so that they are not forced to reveal the identity of confidential sources. In federal courts, however, there is no uniform set of standards to govern when information about confidential sources can be sought from reporters. Broadcast journalists' ability to bring important matters to the American public has been put in jeopardy as numerous reporters have been questioned about their confidential sources or had their records subpoenaed in cases before federal courts.

Issue
Virtually all states provide protections, either by statute or by judicial decision, so that journalists are not routinely forced to reveal the identity of confidential sources. In federal courts, however, there is no uniform set of standards to govern when information about confidential sources can be sought from reporters. Broadcast journalists ability to bring important matters to the American public has been put in jeopardy as numerous reporters have been questioned about their confidential sources or had their records subpoenaed in cases before federal courts. Recent sweeping subpoenas of phone records and emails of news organizations further highlight the importance of enacting bipartisan legislation that would set clear standards for protecting confidential sources, including whistleblowers and others with important information.

History
In 2009, the Free Flow of Information Act cleared the U.S. House of Representatives by a voice vote, while its counterpart cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee. This legislation ensures the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources, also known as reporter's shield. While the Senate bill eventually stalled, recent government interactions with the press have given the legislation new life.

Last May, it was discovered that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed a broad range of phone records from the Associated Press, as well as the substance of correspondence involving Fox News reporter James Rosen. In response, NAB and other major media organizations sent a letter to the department expressing our displeasure with how the incident was handled and calling for a strong federal reporter shield law. Shortly thereafter, the Free Flow of Information Act was reintroduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (NY) and Lindsey Graham (SC) in the Senate, as well as Reps. John Conyers (MI-13) and Ted Poe (TX-02) in the House.

A large coalition of more than 70 companies and trade associations support these bills. As a result of those efforts, the Senate bill was reported favorably to the full Senate in September 2013 by the Judiciary Committee. The House has yet to act on this legislation.

NAB Position
Federal legislation to protect journalists, and companies that employ journalists, from being forced to reveal the identities of confidential sources except in defined circumstances such as threats to national security, is widely supported by broadcast, electronic and print media. Compelling the disclosure of confidential sources has a chilling effect on the flow of information to the public, and discourages whistleblowers from coming forward with evidence of waste, fraud and abuse in government and the private sector. Legislation such as the Free Flow of Information Act protects the confidential relationship between reporters and their sources, promotes reporting important information to the public and accounts for legitimate government interests in law enforcement and security.

Action Needed
Congress should support the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 987 and H.R. 1962, to ensure that protections for journalists sources at the federal level reflect the protections already granted in nearly every state across the country.