There are 32 states that have a "shield law" for the news media. Wisconsin has not yet joined them, but has an opportunity to do so that lawmakers should take advantage of.
Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, announced Tuesday that he will introduce a bill to protect a journalist's right to keep confidential the sources and material collected in the reporting process. Parisi is seeking co-sponsors for the "Whistleblower Protection Act," designed to allow journalists to protect people who "have blown the whistle on corruption, corporate malfeasance and violations of the public trust."
While Wisconsin case law already seems to allow journalists to protect confidential sources, there is agreement that protection is somewhat murky. There have been cases in Wisconsin where journalists have been pursued legally for trying to protect confidential sources. State law can lift that cloud of uncertainty.
The protection, while technically for journalists, really is for news sources. Why is it important to provide this protection?
Without a shield law for journalists, sources could not have confidence in remaining anonymous when they provide information about things such as political corruption or corporate wrongdoing. Without that confidence in anonymity, a person with information is much more likely to decline to share it. Without the information, it becomes much less likely that wrongdoing will be exposed publicly and be corrected and punished.
It is idealistic, but unrealistic, to expect that corruption can be just as easily exposed without confidential whistleblowers. Yes, confidential sources should be used judiciously and infrequently by news organizations, but there are times when they are necessary to tell a story.
Parisi's law would not give free reign to journalists to use and protect confidential sources. It would use as a benchmark a 1990s appeals court decision that journalists have greater protection than other witnesses from having to comply with discovery subpoenas. The protection of confidentiality would be lifted only as a last resort, if a judge determines there is no other way to determine the truth.
Better than having Wisconsin and other states individually protect confidentiality would be the creation of a uniform federal law doing the same. A federal shield law passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 15-2 vote last October, but the future of the bill is uncertain and President Bush has said he would veto it.
So, for now, the best way to allow private citizens to expose public and private wrongdoing anonymously and without fear of retribution is for states like Wisconsin to pass their own shield laws. Parisi's legislation would accomplish that, and it deserves the support and quick action from the Legislature before the end of its current session.
Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, announced Tuesday that he will introduce a bill to protect a journalist's right to keep confidential the sources and material collected in the reporting process. Parisi is seeking co-sponsors for the "Whistleblower Protection Act," designed to allow journalists to protect people who "have blown the whistle on corruption, corporate malfeasance and violations of the public trust."
While Wisconsin case law already seems to allow journalists to protect confidential sources, there is agreement that protection is somewhat murky. There have been cases in Wisconsin where journalists have been pursued legally for trying to protect confidential sources. State law can lift that cloud of uncertainty.
The protection, while technically for journalists, really is for news sources. Why is it important to provide this protection?
Without a shield law for journalists, sources could not have confidence in remaining anonymous when they provide information about things such as political corruption or corporate wrongdoing. Without that confidence in anonymity, a person with information is much more likely to decline to share it. Without the information, it becomes much less likely that wrongdoing will be exposed publicly and be corrected and punished.
It is idealistic, but unrealistic, to expect that corruption can be just as easily exposed without confidential whistleblowers. Yes, confidential sources should be used judiciously and infrequently by news organizations, but there are times when they are necessary to tell a story.
Parisi's law would not give free reign to journalists to use and protect confidential sources. It would use as a benchmark a 1990s appeals court decision that journalists have greater protection than other witnesses from having to comply with discovery subpoenas. The protection of confidentiality would be lifted only as a last resort, if a judge determines there is no other way to determine the truth.
Better than having Wisconsin and other states individually protect confidentiality would be the creation of a uniform federal law doing the same. A federal shield law passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 15-2 vote last October, but the future of the bill is uncertain and President Bush has said he would veto it.
So, for now, the best way to allow private citizens to expose public and private wrongdoing anonymously and without fear of retribution is for states like Wisconsin to pass their own shield laws. Parisi's legislation would accomplish that, and it deserves the support and quick action from the Legislature before the end of its current session.
Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, announced Tuesday that he will introduce a bill to protect a journalist's right to keep confidential the sources and material collected in the reporting process. Parisi is seeking co-sponsors for the "Whistleblower Protection Act," designed to allow journalists to protect people who "have blown the whistle on corruption, corporate malfeasance and violations of the public trust."
While Wisconsin case law already seems to allow journalists to protect confidential sources, there is agreement that protection is somewhat murky. There have been cases in Wisconsin where journalists have been pursued legally for trying to protect confidential sources. State law can lift that cloud of uncertainty.
The protection, while technically for journalists, really is for news sources. Why is it important to provide this protection?
Without a shield law for journalists, sources could not have confidence in remaining anonymous when they provide information about things such as political corruption or corporate wrongdoing. Without that confidence in anonymity, a person with information is much more likely to decline to share it. Without the information, it becomes much less likely that wrongdoing will be exposed publicly and be corrected and punished.
It is idealistic, but unrealistic, to expect that corruption can be just as easily exposed without confidential whistleblowers. Yes, confidential sources should be used judiciously and infrequently by news organizations, but there are times when they are necessary to tell a story.
Parisi's law would not give free reign to journalists to use and protect confidential sources. It would use as a benchmark a 1990s appeals court decision that journalists have greater protection than other witnesses from having to comply with discovery subpoenas. The protection of confidentiality would be lifted only as a last resort, if a judge determines there is no other way to determine the truth.
Better than having Wisconsin and other states individually protect confidentiality would be the creation of a uniform federal law doing the same. A federal shield law passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 15-2 vote last October, but the future of the bill is uncertain and President Bush has said he would veto it.
So, for now, the best way to allow private citizens to expose public and private wrongdoing anonymously and without fear of retribution is for states like Wisconsin to pass their own shield laws. Parisi's legislation would accomplish that, and it deserves the support and quick action from the Legislature before the end of its current session.
Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, announced Tuesday that he will introduce a bill to protect a journalist's right to keep confidential the sources and material collected in the reporting process. Parisi is seeking co-sponsors for the "Whistleblower Protection Act," designed to allow journalists to protect people who "have blown the whistle on corruption, corporate malfeasance and violations of the public trust."
While Wisconsin case law already seems to allow journalists to protect confidential sources, there is agreement that protection is somewhat murky. There have been cases in Wisconsin where journalists have been pursued legally for trying to protect confidential sources. State law can lift that cloud of uncertainty.
The protection, while technically for journalists, really is for news sources. Why is it important to provide this protection?
Without a shield law for journalists, sources could not have confidence in remaining anonymous when they provide information about things such as political corruption or corporate wrongdoing. Without that confidence in anonymity, a person with information is much more likely to decline to share it. Without the information, it becomes much less likely that wrongdoing will be exposed publicly and be corrected and punished.
It is idealistic, but unrealistic, to expect that corruption can be just as easily exposed without confidential whistleblowers. Yes, confidential sources should be used judiciously and infrequently by news organizations, but there are times when they are necessary to tell a story.
Parisi's law would not give free reign to journalists to use and protect confidential sources. It would use as a benchmark a 1990s appeals court decision that journalists have greater protection than other witnesses from having to comply with discovery subpoenas. The protection of confidentiality would be lifted only as a last resort, if a judge determines there is no other way to determine the truth.
Better than having Wisconsin and other states individually protect confidentiality would be the creation of a uniform federal law doing the same. A federal shield law passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 15-2 vote last October, but the future of the bill is uncertain and President Bush has said he would veto it.
So, for now, the best way to allow private citizens to expose public and private wrongdoing anonymously and without fear of retribution is for states like Wisconsin to pass their own shield laws. Parisi's legislation would accomplish that, and it deserves the support and quick action from the Legislature before the end of its current session.
