Even before the New York Times Editorial Board, which is separate from the newsroom, lent its support to the PRESS Act, protecting journalists from being forced to reveal the sources of their stories, we were notified by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), and we are in accord with this initiative.
By joining the Society of Professional Journalists and 120 other signatories, as well as journalism organizations, First Amendment advocacy groups, attorneys and law professors, we raise our voice in urging leaders of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to “prioritize action on this long-stalled legislation to protect journalist-source confidentiality.”
In short, we insist that the PRESS Act, which the House of Representatives unanimously passed in January, become legislation. A bipartisan federal shield act, Press Act, S.2074, would protect journalists from being compelled to disclose sources or records created as part of their reporting, except in extreme cases.
Such action is consistent with the preamble of the SPJ Code of Ethics which declared “that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”
Given the current threat to democracy, and the incipient fascism emanating from a certain presidential candidate, powerful safeguards are demanded, and the SPJ stands as an unwavering sentinel in this regard.
While we don’t always agree with the New York Times or much of the mainstream press, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Times on this issue, and echo its charge that “Governments often chafe at the presence of a free press. The reason is simple: A robust and independent news media keeps a sharp eye on the government and, when necessary, exposes abuse of power, corruption, incompetence and waste.”
When the principles of SPJ converge with the Times’ editorial board, there is no hesitancy on our part to lock arms with them and push for this federal shield law.