SuperCitizen

Forty-nine states and DC have shield laws or court-recognized privileges protecting journalists from compelled source disclosure. The federal government does not — the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional reporter's privilege in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972).

The PRESS Act, repeatedly proposed and passed by the House but stalled in the Senate, would provide federal protection for journalists from compelled disclosure of sources, with exceptions for terrorism and imminent harm.

Defenders argue source protection is essential to investigative journalism and informing the public. Critics argue it can shield criminal activity and that "journalist" is hard to define in an era of bloggers, podcasters, and citizen journalists.

Spectrum of framings

How adherents on each side of the conventional left / center / right spectrum frame this issue — written so each camp would recognize the framing as charitable.

left

Most progressives strongly support a federal shield law.

center

Most centrists support shield laws, including federal versions.

right

Conservative views split: many support the PRESS Act; some oppose protections for "mainstream media."

Perspectives

Each perspective is presented in terms its advocates would recognize, with the concerns they treat as paramount. None is endorsed.

Shield-law advocates

Investigative journalism — Watergate, NSA surveillance, government waste — depends on confidential sources. A federal shield law brings the U.S. in line with 49 states and protects democracy's watchdog function.

Investigative-journalism viability
Source-protection certainty
Federal-state harmonization

Skeptics

Shield laws can be exploited to protect criminal conspiracies, leaks of classified information that endanger lives, and to apply selectively to favored "journalists." Define narrowly or not at all.

Defining who counts as a journalist
Carve-outs for genuine harm
Avoiding political-favoritism in protections