Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - The 1st Amendment to the Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791
These are anxious, heady days in newsrooms across the country. And while what goes on behind the scenes in newsrooms, on most days, should be ignored as sausage-making by all non-newsies, it is time to peel back the curtain and take a full view.
Because these days, newsrooms are under assault. And the end result is that you, the news consumer, and really, all Americans, are under assault as well.
More hype? No, not this time. But sadly, I understand your disbelief. In a world in which we are all pummeled by headlines, broadcasts and now ... podcasts ... that scream at us with SHARK ATTACKS and KILLER STORMS or stories YOU WON'T BELIEVE, it really is hard to get anyone's attention for a story that impacts us all. But this is one of those times the hype is backed up by a story that is truly hard to believe.
As you read this, a reporter sits in jail for not relinquishing the name of a private, unnamed source. Another reporter stood before a judge last week and said he was ready to divulge the name of his confidential source, and thereby avoid jail. Each had written stories, for respected news organizations, which used confidential sources to flush out details and information that would otherwise have likely been unreported.
The truth of these stories is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether reporters who use confidential sources can be forced by a court to divulge those sources names in a civic or criminal case.
As a News Director who relies on confidential sources to drive stories in only the rarest of rare instances, I have to tell you that forcing reporters to in essence, give up the ability to protect a source on a story will mean many stories are never told.
Because when you're in the business of telling stories that some people, companies or governments would rather keep untold to protect themselves or avoid embarrassment or worse....sources often have a lot to lose. Namely, their jobs and perhaps their personal freedom. So, faced with jail, loss of job, intimidation or bodily harm, many of these sources will keep their stories to themselves.
And we all lose when that happens.
The Founding Fathers knew a free press would keep the masses informed. And no doubt, they knew that the very government that guaranteed press freedoms would often be a target of that press. And knowing that, they included that right in the very first amendment to our constitution. That says a lot about the values this country stood for...and hopefully, still does.
Since 9/11, there has been a steady stream of information lockdowns....both big and small... by our local, state and federal governments. The need to protect us all from a greater evil is usually listed as the common sense reason.
I'm not here to argue that genuine public security be damned. I am still nearly brought to tears of anger when I think about the real evil that clouded the blue skies that September day nearly 4 years ago.
I only want you to consider that the possibility exists that our government may be creating a greater long-term threat to our freedoms by putting a stranglehold on the free flow of information that we've become accustomed to since 1791. Pay attention to this story. It's one worthy of hype.
Previous Columns: Station Information: Copyright 2005 by ThePittsburghChannel. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
