Today, a news reporter in Wisconsin can promise not to reveal the identity of a source who wants to provide information anonymously. But tomorrow a court could compel that reporter to reveal the source's identity, and the records they've obtained.
That's why a pair of companion bills in the state Legislature should receive a quick hearing, passage and the governor's signature. State Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, and Sen. Pat Kreitlow, D-Chippewa Falls, have introduced bills (AB 333 and SB 235) that would provide absolute protection from compelled disclosure of the identity of a confidential source.
Past rulings by the state Supreme Court have given media members a qualified privilege against revealing confidential sources. The privilege is qualified, the Legislative Reference Bureau says, "because the reporter may be required to reveal the source if proof is presented showing that the source may have information that is competent, relevant, material, and favorable to the requester and that there are no other reasonable and adequate alternative sources for the information." The proposed bills would remove that qualifier and enable the reporter to promise a source confidentiality with legal backing.
Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia already have so-called "shield laws" for journalists and their sources. Congress also is considering a federal law to grant such protection.
Confidential sources, often referred to as "whistle blowers," are used only on very rare occasions in news reports. When they are used, they are the difference between being able to expose corruption and malfeasance and not. It is important for such sources to know they can reveal information without fear of public exposure, which can cause them physical or financial harm.
Sources, and the information they can provide, must be protected. The absence of a legal assurance of anonymity could dissuade potential whistle blowers from coming forward with information the public ought to know.
"Oftentimes the only way consumers can be protected is that if a source can trust a reporter's ability to maintain their confidentiality," Parisi said. "Journalists must be able to protect the confidentiality of those who expose public or private wrong-doing."
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics will conduct a public hearing July 14 on AB 333. A Senate committee hearing has not yet been scheduled. Lawmakers should be encouraged to support this vital protection to confidential sources. And the governor's public support also would be welcome. He hasn't yet indicated his position on the bills.
That's why a pair of companion bills in the state Legislature should receive a quick hearing, passage and the governor's signature. State Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, and Sen. Pat Kreitlow, D-Chippewa Falls, have introduced bills (AB 333 and SB 235) that would provide absolute protection from compelled disclosure of the identity of a confidential source.
Past rulings by the state Supreme Court have given media members a qualified privilege against revealing confidential sources. The privilege is qualified, the Legislative Reference Bureau says, "because the reporter may be required to reveal the source if proof is presented showing that the source may have information that is competent, relevant, material, and favorable to the requester and that there are no other reasonable and adequate alternative sources for the information." The proposed bills would remove that qualifier and enable the reporter to promise a source confidentiality with legal backing.
Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia already have so-called "shield laws" for journalists and their sources. Congress also is considering a federal law to grant such protection.
Confidential sources, often referred to as "whistle blowers," are used only on very rare occasions in news reports. When they are used, they are the difference between being able to expose corruption and malfeasance and not. It is important for such sources to know they can reveal information without fear of public exposure, which can cause them physical or financial harm.
Sources, and the information they can provide, must be protected. The absence of a legal assurance of anonymity could dissuade potential whistle blowers from coming forward with information the public ought to know.
"Oftentimes the only way consumers can be protected is that if a source can trust a reporter's ability to maintain their confidentiality," Parisi said. "Journalists must be able to protect the confidentiality of those who expose public or private wrong-doing."
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics will conduct a public hearing July 14 on AB 333. A Senate committee hearing has not yet been scheduled. Lawmakers should be encouraged to support this vital protection to confidential sources. And the governor's public support also would be welcome. He hasn't yet indicated his position on the bills.
