EC-The Reporter's Privilege

     Being an outsider to the state of Utah, it was interesting to note the praise received for being one of the last states to allow a shield law for journalists in the state of Utah.  The panel discussion last thursday on the topic of protecting confidential sources proved education for me, individually, as I consider myself somewhat of an outsider to the whole journalism legal scene, as well.  Those who participated as part of the panel shed some new light on the subject.

     Being a member of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee, Mr. Dayle Jeffs set the stage for the reasoning behind the shield law.  Before the law, journalists seemed to be under the gun whenever they were subject to court appearance.  Before the shield law, journalist were basically required to give up information, even though they had stated that the information or the sources were confidential, and they were just in thinking so.  What spurned the creation of this law is when the members of the committee noted what repercussions this was having.  Mr. Jeffs said himself that, "it was disturbing to me that when a journalist finds out some important information, he is told to destroy his notes."  It seemed as though more damaged was being done by not allowing the reporters this privilege.

     Jeff Hunt started out the panel by stating that the shield law made in Utah, or referred to as Rule 509, was made "...not for the journalist, but to protect the free flow of information to the public."  My immediate response to this was to question it.  If reporters were now shielded from giving any information they deemed "confidential" then reporters could get away with reporting anything they wanted to and hide any sources of information that were actually false.  However, later on, Mr. Hunt explained that the law was formed in such a way that these loop holes were accounted for and that under certain circumstances the reporters were subject to give up information.  

     How necessary is this law?  Obviously, it is necessary for the state of Utah, but is it necessary enough to be established as a federal law?  The clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor, RonNell Jones, provided the information that in the current state of the nation, it would appear that a federal shield law is becoming more necessary.  The most interesting statistic is that subpoenas issued to journalist, over the years, has increased substantially.  In years past, there was simply not enough evidence to justify such a law to be passed, but the drastic increase of subpoenas issued has brought it to federal attention and, in her opinion, has justified a genuine need for it.

     Listening to the panel has made me much more aware of the issue and what state it is in today.  I certainly was convinced that the shield laws serve a very important purpose for journalist, but more importantly, the free flow of information to people like me.  It will be interesting to see what changes lie ahead.