Mary Alice Molgard on Media Shield Bill Law

OurBlook interview with Prof. Mary Alice Molgard, College of Saint Rose.

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

MAM: Current proposal at least gives some protection to reporters in the states that don't currently have a shield law. Reporting on issues of public importance is vital in communities both large and small. Sources put themselves at risk if they expose a wrong (loss of job, influence, prestige, family complications) without the promise of confidentiality. Sources also don't have means to reach a wide audience, and therefore need the media to do it for them. The shield enables the reporter to credibly inform the public. Without it, the story doesn't get told, and the public is at a disadvantage.

What are the cons?

MAM: The current Senate proposal allows judges to compel reporters to reveal sources  in the case of a threat to national security. The problem here is how to define what that threat is. The House proposal does not contain that provision. It seems as though the Senate is trying to establish a new "test," a distant cousin of clear and present danger, now called "significant or articulable harm."

Do you see it as of major importance or minor?

MAM: A federal shield law is only of major importance to the media. It is not understood or considered important by the general public.The public already has a strong negative perception of reporters and the shield law may be seen as a way to avoid accountability.

When is it justified for a publication to use a confidential source for an important story? When isn't it?

MAM: Confidential sources should be used when the issue is of significant public importance. That could be drastically different from community to community, but it should never be relied on for trivial items. A confidential source telling a reporter a public official is cheating on a spouse isn't the same as the source claiming the official is embezzling from city coffers.

During your broadcast career, did you ever work on stories in which you were glad you had a state media shield law, or wished you had one? Could you tell us about those?

MAM: No personal shield-worthy stories, sorry!

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?

MAM: Odd, no. Sad, yes. News organizations all across the country are afraid of doing controversial stories. Lawsuits are expensive, in financial terms, in terms of time and energy. Local television almost never does investigative reporting any more;  newspapers are reluctant but still do some stories. However, if cutbacks and layoffs continue, the numbers of such stories will dwindle. Business managers will not spend limited resources on potentially difficult stories requiring confidentiality and lawyers. The chilling effect is alive and well.

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?

MAM: Re: Smoking Gun scenario. Don't know a lot about this, but private citizen might have recourse to sue on false light invasion of privacy, depending on state statutes ... would rather not venture an opinion here ...

(Editor's Note: Prof. Molgard teaches both communications law and broadcast law, broadcast news, plus occasionally media ethics. On communications faculty at College of Saint Rose, Albany, N.Y.,  for 25 years. Also taught at Radford University in Virginia, and Appalachian State University in North Carolina. Reporter at noncommercial radio and TV operations in Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia.)