The Wisconsin legislature is coming closer to protecting the core of one of the most critical functions of journalism - the need for a reporter to protect the identity of a confidential source.
Last week, the state Assembly passed the "Whistleblower Protection Act," protecting confidential sources, and reporters from revealing their names.
Wisconsin already has court rulings, but no state law, offering some protection for reporters.
The bill is based on a 1995 state appeals court ruling that said journalists have more protection than other witnesses from being forced to testify or provide information.
The bill was drafted in consultation with the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
Most people know Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, then of the Washington Post, relying on their anonymous source "Deepthroat" to report details of the Watergate scandal, which helped bring down President Richard Nixon. Others might remember Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who refused to testify before a grand jury to reveal the name of a source who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent in 2005. Her refusal landed her in contempt of court, and jail time.
Though Miller's work was never published, her ability to not be forced to reveal the name is what makes investigative journalism possible.
It is doubtful either one of those sources would have contacted or spoken to the journalists if they felt their identities would be revealed.
Would you if you felt you would likely receive retribution from a boss or coworker if you exposed illegal activity? Unlikely.
A confidential source often risks such retribution or embarrassment if information that is completely relevant to a situation like government waste, corruption, impropriety, or outright criminal activity is revealed. If a reporter is forced to reveal the name, not only is the source's life impacted, sometimes severely, the reporter is also less likely to be trusted by other sources.
"Investigatory journalism would be much less than what it is today if there weren't sources willing to take huge risks - real or perceived - to reveal w-aste, fraud and abuse," said Peter Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, to the Associated Press last week. Reporters essentially serve as a conduit for those whistle-blowers, he said.
The Assembly bill would bring Wisconsin in line with 37 other states, but this law will not keep reporters from reaching a fate like that of Miller. If the bill becomes law - it still must be passed by the Senate and Gov. Jim Doyle - judges could order reporters to testify, produce information or reveal a source's identity only when it is "highly relevant" to the case or critical to at least one party's argument. Attorneys would have to show they couldn't get the information any other way and there was an overriding public interest in disclosing it.
The only immediate disappointment in the bill is the measure passed on a voice vote in the Assembly. The vote on a bill, such as this one, with important ramifications for journalists to perform their watchdog function on government or corporate business activity, should have been recorded.
We urge the Senate to follow the Assembly's lead and provide judges clear guidelines when it comes to seeking source identities in court. To provide true, strong investigative journalism reporters and their sources need the reassurance of anonymity - as much as possible.
Last week, the state Assembly passed the "Whistleblower Protection Act," protecting confidential sources, and reporters from revealing their names.
Wisconsin already has court rulings, but no state law, offering some protection for reporters.
The bill is based on a 1995 state appeals court ruling that said journalists have more protection than other witnesses from being forced to testify or provide information.
The bill was drafted in consultation with the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
Most people know Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, then of the Washington Post, relying on their anonymous source "Deepthroat" to report details of the Watergate scandal, which helped bring down President Richard Nixon. Others might remember Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who refused to testify before a grand jury to reveal the name of a source who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent in 2005. Her refusal landed her in contempt of court, and jail time.
Though Miller's work was never published, her ability to not be forced to reveal the name is what makes investigative journalism possible.
It is doubtful either one of those sources would have contacted or spoken to the journalists if they felt their identities would be revealed.
Would you if you felt you would likely receive retribution from a boss or coworker if you exposed illegal activity? Unlikely.
A confidential source often risks such retribution or embarrassment if information that is completely relevant to a situation like government waste, corruption, impropriety, or outright criminal activity is revealed. If a reporter is forced to reveal the name, not only is the source's life impacted, sometimes severely, the reporter is also less likely to be trusted by other sources.
"Investigatory journalism would be much less than what it is today if there weren't sources willing to take huge risks - real or perceived - to reveal w-aste, fraud and abuse," said Peter Fox, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, to the Associated Press last week. Reporters essentially serve as a conduit for those whistle-blowers, he said.
The Assembly bill would bring Wisconsin in line with 37 other states, but this law will not keep reporters from reaching a fate like that of Miller. If the bill becomes law - it still must be passed by the Senate and Gov. Jim Doyle - judges could order reporters to testify, produce information or reveal a source's identity only when it is "highly relevant" to the case or critical to at least one party's argument. Attorneys would have to show they couldn't get the information any other way and there was an overriding public interest in disclosing it.
The only immediate disappointment in the bill is the measure passed on a voice vote in the Assembly. The vote on a bill, such as this one, with important ramifications for journalists to perform their watchdog function on government or corporate business activity, should have been recorded.
We urge the Senate to follow the Assembly's lead and provide judges clear guidelines when it comes to seeking source identities in court. To provide true, strong investigative journalism reporters and their sources need the reassurance of anonymity - as much as possible.
