C. Fraser Smith, The Daily Record Newswire
We shouldn’t be too surprised by new evidence that lawmakers — including presidents — don’t worry much about press freedom.
We may be surprised about the ferocity of the Obama administration’s determination to clip the wings of investigative journalism — since many of us think of that group as generally progressive.
But what Attorney General Eric Holder is doing with the aid of conservative federal courts mirrors the efforts of authorities from time immemorial.
And it’s more of a threat to press freedom and investigative reporting now — and more likely to succeed — because newspapers have been weakened profoundly. The administration might actually stand back and watch investigations collapse from their lack of weight.
With some exceptions, newspapers don’t do as much investigative work as they used to. They can barely cover the news that’s right in front of them. They don’t have the manpower it takes to do the investigating that a democratic society needs to keep power in check. It was difficult enough when newspapers were not on the verge of extinction.
Thus we see the U.S. Department of Justice demanding the testimony of New York Times reporter James Risen, who broke important stories a decade ago on warrantless wiretaps. It’s as if, stung by assertions that they are building a surveillance state, the Obama administration is redoubling its efforts to secure Risen’s testimony in the case of a government employee accused of being his source.
Risen refuses to cooperate. Risen and The New York Times argue that to comply would effectively end their ability to protect sources in investigations. If a reporter promises anonymity and then gives in to government pressure, who will help him or her in the future?
It’s an old story, one that probably will never die. There are those who can’t believe the Obama administration is doing this. They have a high regard for it in so many other areas. Perhaps this kind of anti-reporter zeal comes with the job no matter how liberal a president may be. The tendency of powerful leaders to pursue such cases seems to go along with the position.
And it’s not just a national issue.
Some years ago in Maryland, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. proposed legislation that would actually have strengthened what is called the state’s shield law. That law gives reporters protection against prosecutors who want them to testify in various criminal matters — just as Holder is doing now in the Risen matter.
Miller had seen how prosecutors could go after reporters in ways that might have chilled the ardor of those otherwise determined to put important facts before voters. In Prince George’s County, where Miller lived then, a Washington Post reporter had refused to identify sources who helped her develop stores about conditions in county jails.
The stories were embarrassing to public officials; they were crucial for those determined to end the abusive conditions.
Like Risen, the reporter insisted she would go to jail rather than break faith with those who had helped her.
Miller offered a bill that would give reporters more protection in such cases. It passed easily in his chamber and in the House of Delegates’ judiciary committee.
But then-House Speaker Benjamin L. Cardin and his legislative backstop, Donald Robertson of Montgomery County, saw something curious in the Miller bill as reshaped by the House committee.
Robertson raised his concerns as the committee chairman. Joe Owens, also of Montgomery, began to explain the bill before the full House in the assembly’s always-hectic closing hours.
“Mr. Chairman,” Robertson said, “what does this bill do?”
Owens who seemed to love his nickname — the Abominable No-Man — may have realized he game was up. He’d been caught holding what is known in Annapolis as a snake — a bill of purpose other than the one on its label.
“Well,” Owens said with just a hint of a smile on his face, “when this bill came before the committee it was moving 50 miles an hour in this direction.” He moved his hand forward. “When it left,” he said.
There was appreciative laughter from other political leaders not eager to do reporters any favors.
Robertson, having guessed accurately, argued against the bill and it died on the floor. Maryland‘s law remained unchanged. The shield law had not been weakened, but Miller’s intent was not honored. Owens won.
And now in Washington, something similar is happening. The unspoken agreement that investigative reporting is crucial to a democracy — is being aggressively undone.
Citizens and members of both major parties should demand answers.
—————
C. Fraser Smith is senior news analyst for WYPR-FM. His email address is fsmith@wypr.org.
