John Hamer on Media Shield Bill

OurBlook interview with John Hamer, executive director of the Washington News Council.


What are the pros of the media shield bill law moving through Congress?

JH: It is valuable to have protections for confidential sources of important information that the public deserves and needs to know, IF those sources are genuinely in jeopardy of serious repercussions such as job loss or demotion, financial harm or physical threat. However, if national security is clearly at stake, there should be no such protections.


What are the cons?

JH: The danger is that confidential sources may have ulterior motives that are not apparent or revealed to journalists who are seeking a "good story" and often hoping to win journalism prizes. Some sources may manipulate journalists and use them for their own purposes. Too many journalists are naive or inexperienced and easily manipulated. With the declining number of experienced editors and the deadline pressures of online media, this problem is exacerbated.


Do you see it as of major importance or minor?

JH: It's of major importance to journalists, but only moderate importance to most members of the public. Many people already believe journalists are inaccurate, sloppy, lazy, biased, sensationalistic and sometimes unethical. That's why public trust in the news media is at all-time low levels. (See latest Gallup, Pew and Sacred Heart national survey results.) Certainly the public supports good investigative journalism to reveal misconduct among government, business, nonprofits, academia, sports, law enforcement and other institutions. But the public is so mistrustful of the media that they take major media "exposes" with a large grain of salt ... or at least they should.


Has your council ever dealt with a controversy involving confidential sources?

JH: No, not directly. But we have had some formal written complaints about media stories that were at least partly based on confidential sources. King County Sheriff Sue Rahr's complaint against the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which was upheld by the News Council at a 2006 WNC public hearing, was one example.

(Editor's note: The now-defunct paper ran a yearlong series examining misconduct in the sheriff's office. Of 11 complaints made by Rahr about the coverage, the council said eight were justified. The Post-Intelligencer refused to participate in the council's proceedings, but it did run 13 corrections or clarifications to stories and editorials during the series.)


Do you find it odd that the mainstream media are gaining this power just as they are declining precipitously in readership and finances, are at an all-time low in public believability as measured by the recent Pew research report, and have relatively few reporters left who would avail themselves of such a law?

JH: It's not odd, exactly. But it's an indication of the desperation among many mainstream media journalists who still think their sweeping investigative reports are the most important thing they do. They long for the days of Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate, which left a lasting legacy on American journalism. Too many journalists today still want to "take down" somebody or some institution and win a Pulitzer Prize for doing it. Meanwhile, they may neglect the positive stories that can reinforce constructive activities that really benefit their communities.


Last year, the Los Angeles Times retracted a story, and reporter Chuck Philips publicly apologized, after the investigative website Smoking Gun exposed the fact that the confidential source he had relied on had given him forged documents in the case of the attack on rap star Tupac Shakur. Assuming Smoking Gun isn't around to help, and if the shield bill becomes law, what recourse would an innocent person have if he or she was the victim of a false, harmful story based on false, harmful information from a confidential source

JH: This proves my point above .. that journalists can be easily misled by sources with ulterior motives. Witness the CBS Dan Rather/Mary Mapes stories about George W. Bush. Witness the New York Times stories about John McCain's supposed affair with a lobbyist. Witness the "Yes Men" phony press conference at the National Press Club! Journalists need to be much more skeptical of confidential sources' motives ... and even consider laying out those motives in public. In retrospect, even "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt) had ulterior motives because he had been passed over to head the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover's death. Should the Washington Post have told its readers that fact? Would it have made readers think any differently about the Watergate stories?



Is there anything else you'd like to say about confidential sources and the media shield legislation?

JH: Too many journalists today are still in denial about how they are perceived by most of the public. They think they deserve special protections and special treatment because they are doing such an important job. They proclaim that their motives are noble and pure, that they defend the "people's right to know," that they "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and that they "speak truth to power." They don't realize that many citizens mistrust the press as much or more than they do other major institutions.

Journalists need to show more humility and invite more public comment and feedback. Journalists who always thought they were God's gift to democracy should start realizing that democracy is actually God's gift to them.



The Washington News Council is now entering its 12th year. Hamer says, "We hold the news media in this state publicly accountable, and journalists don't always warm to that idea." He has been associate editorial page editor at the Seattle Times and associate editor with Congressional Quarterly/Editorial Research Reports. He is a graduate of Dartmouth and has a master's degree in journalism from Stanford.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)