Beacon Hill Examines the Press

POLITICIANS rarely marry reporters. This isn't too surprising when you look at the hostile relationship of the government and the news media during the last four years. Reporters claim that freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, is being slowly whittled away, while government officials maintain that the press requires control as it daily grows more irresponsible.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June in the Caldwell case that the First Amendment does not guarantee that a reporter's confidential information or sources are safe from subpoena. However, the Court encouraged Congress and state legislatures to pass shield laws--statutes which protect a newsman's confidential sources and information from forced disclosure.

Massachusetts now is in the process of considering such shield legislation. Nineteen states already have shield laws, and 12 of these have provided absolute protection from any kind of forced disclosure. In the Massachusetts state legislature, five bills have been filed, each ranging in the scope of protection that it provides. Less than two weeks ago, on February 14, the state legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary held its only day of hearings on the five bills. The legislators showed that they, like most politicians, are not particularly in love with the press. In fact, the committee members, led by their co-chairman, State Senator William M. Bulger (D-Boston), expressed doubt that any type of shield bill, limited or absolute, is necessary.

The 25 witnesses at the hearing--mostly legislators and representatives of legal and press organizations--continually stated that the Caldwell decision has resulted in the drying up of news sources. The latter are unwilling to rely on a newsman's promise that he will go to jail before disclosing his confidential source. As a result, investigative reporters will be severely hampered. The witnesses did not emphasize the need to protect reporters but rather the need to protect the people's right to know.

To the committee members, the rights of the press and those of the public appeared divergent, not complementary.

BY THEIR COMMENTS and questions, the legislators demonstrated that they wanted to exceed even the Supreme Court in restricting the press's freedom. Several lawmakers argued that newsmen should cooperate with the police in every investigation by divulging pertinent information and the names of sources. But they did not review the implications of converting the press into an investigative arm of the law, thereby exacerbating the already dangerous reluctance of sources to provide information.

The legislators were reluctant to accept the word of several newsmen who said that their sources are drying up. One committee member suggested that an independent survey be initiated to show that sources indeed are becoming scarce. Yet this is an endeavor which, as one witness put it, would be "like proving there's no Santa Claus."

SEVERAL LEGISLATORS suggested that a shield bill would allow journalists to perform irresponsibly and to escape libel suits. In response, witnesses stressed that a shield law would not affect a newspaper's responsibility for what it prints. Newspapers, not sources, are sued for allegedly libelous statements.

By far the strongest denunciation was voiced by Senator Bulger, who accused newsmen of making a "tempest in a teapot." They seek martyrdom in this "tempest," he said, in order to profit from the campus lecture circuit. Jack Kelly of WBZ news answered the attack by stating, "I have no desire to visit any campus. I spent four years on one; that was fine." If sources do continue to dry up, Kelly may find the lecture circuit is his only recourse.

Fortunately for the advocates of a shield bill, the committee's action will not prevent its passage. There remains a chance that the committee will support a more conservative measure, provided the silent committee members are in favor of a protective bill. Hopefully, the state's legislators will be more open minded than the members of the judiciary committee.

In any event, the problems of the press remain. Sources are gradually drying up as an increasing number of newsmen are subpoenaed to divulge their confidential information and sources. The situation is a dangerous one, for it is--as the hearing so clearly demonstrated--far from an objective group of politicians that is determining what freedom of the press will mean in the future. The question should be not whether to have a bill but rather what kind of a bill should be passed.

Effective shield legislation requires immediate enactment. The attitude taken by Senator Bulger only exemplifies the current attitude of far too many legislators: Senator David H. Locke (R-Wellesley): "Those of us in the minority are constantly trying to figure out what your party (the Democrats) are doing." Bulger: "We're trying to protect the newsmen from the Vice President of your party." Locke: "What are you going to do when he's President?" Bulge: "Don't drag me into this."