WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Gilbert Cranberg: WHO GETS SHIELDED BY SHIELD LAWS?

The on-again, off-again proposed federal shield law may be on-again now that the Obama administration has given its backing to protecting journalists from having to disclose their confidential sources.

As the one-time target of a subpoena to reveal all of my notes to a nosey prosecutor, I welcome the proposed protection. But I also have misgivings. If the government can define who is entitled to be protected, it is not a huge step for the government to say who can and cannot practice journalism.

The proposed Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 expansively defines a journalist as a person who regularly gathers news and information in order to disseminate it. I don’t want to be picky, but I have a problem with the word “regularly.” That implies a staff person. Why exclude from protection the free-lancer or citizen-journalist who is not on anyone’s payroll but is aroused by a perceived injustice and undertakes a crusade to correct it? He or she may write a single muckraking piece and never again engage in journalism but that person’s work ought to be deserving of protection. In fact, members of the non-institutional press may be the most vulnerable to intimidation and most need the protection of a shield statute.

Just because a person does not “regularly” exercise First Amendment rights is no reason to bar that person from protection when he or she does. The traditional press is likely to be deeply involved in lobbying for the Free Flow of Information Act. Here’s hoping they are not so deeply involved that they overlook the needs of the little guys.

No comments: