Media Shield

I agree with this D-News editorial. Freedom of the press requires that a significantly heightened standard should apply to obtaining journalists' sources and notes by force of law. However, as the rule proposes, the protection should not be absolute. There are instances -- and courts should consider those instances to be extremely rare -- when the shield must be pierced to uncover illegal activity that threatens dire consequences (e.g., when a confidential source uses the media as a front to divulge highly confidential and sensitive intelligence information). The key, of course, is to determine when the illegal activity is bad enough and the information important enough to warrant the inquiry. Such balancing is best left to the courts.

I have to say, though, I'm not quite sure why the media continues to think it best to parade out Judith Miller to make the case on this issue. Scooter Libby had previously given a waiver for Miller to testify about their conversations (and, based on her subsequent testimony, if it is to be believed, Miller didn't even know who her source was). Based on the objective evidence, therefore, it looks like Miller served time in jail because she wanted 3 hots and a cot -- or maybe a little publicity.