If the Senate doesn’t screw things up, we might finally get the kind of media shield law that our democracy requires.
Late last month, the Republican-controlled House of Representative passed the so-called Commerce, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015 (H.R. 4660) by a margin of 321 to 87.
On its own, there’s nothing all that interesting about H.R. 4660. It’s your basic cut-and-dry appropriations bill that lays out how a handful of federal agencies, including the Justice Department, can spend their money. H.R. 4660 is the kind of bill that Congress passes all the time without much media attention.
But, believe it or not, there actually is something really interesting about H.R. 4660, something that could have a huge impact on how our government interacts with the only industry mentioned by name in the Constitution: the press.
And that something is H.R. 4660’s Section 561, an amendment sponsored by Florida Congressman Alan Grayson.
Section 561 says: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify about information or sources … that he regards as confidential.”
Basically what this means is that the government can’t force journalists to testify in court against their sources, even if their sources are on trial for leaking really top secret information that, in the government’s opinion, could threaten national security.
This is a huge deal.
Right now, the government is making New York Times reporter James Risen testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA agent who Risen used as a source for his book on the CIA. Risen tried getting out of testifying against Sterling by appealing his case to the Supreme Court, but the Court refused to hear his appeal, confirming a lower court decision that said that Risen couldn’t ignore a subpoena just because he was a journalist.
Risen’s case cuts right to the heart of the freedom of the press. When the government makes journalists testify against their sources, it basically makes it impossible for them to do their jobs. It scares other potential sources away from even thinking about talking to a reporter.
This isn’t just bad for the media; it’s bad for our democracy. We need the media to be the fourth estate, a functional fourth branch of government that keeps the other three in check. And when reporters can’t work with sources, especially government sources, because those sources are scared that they’ll testify against them, that makes it impossible for the press to cover what it needs to cover the most: government corruption, secret CIA programs, and other malfeasance by insiders.
We need a media shield law that protects acts of journalism as well as journalists themselves. That’s why Section 561 of the Commerce, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is so crucial: It protects the most important act any journalist can ever do – work with sources to write a story.
The House of Representatives has spoken. It believes in protecting the freedom of the press. Soon we’ll find out if the Senate does, too.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.