Raising a shield

In recent years, Missouri legislators have considered but not adopted proposed bills that would create what amounts to a modified shield law for journalists in the state. Currently, Missouri law is fuzzy about when and under what circumstances reporters and photographers can be compelled to turn over notes, photos and other unpublished or unaired information. In most cases, such information is sought by lawyers who could, using other resources, obtain the information they are seeking but find it easier to demand from news organizations.

Once again, this year's version of the legislation would provide limited protection for journalists. It would require a court order, not a simple subpoena, to obtain information from news organizations. In other states, shield laws provide far-reaching protection to journalists, making confidential information -- including the identities of anonymous sources and those who blow the whistle on government malfeasance -- off limits. Missouri's proposals have been softened in an attempt to garner broader legislative support. Last year's proposal sailed through the House and then stalled. This year's bill has yet to get a committee endorsement.

There's a reason many legislators don't favor shield-law proposals. They find the way some news organizations report their stories to be irresponsible and skewed. In addition, many public officials who are required to operate under the openness foundation of the state's Sunshine Law -- the open meetings and open records law -- see a disparity between information they are required to make public and the claim of journalists to have a right to keep certain information out of public view.

There is a difference, even though it may seem thin to some public officials. The activities and records of government, which has a monopoly on collecting and spending tax dollars, are funded at the public's expense, and taxpayers have a right to an accounting. Journalists are paid by private companies who have a right to protect their proprietary information.

This clash between public and private is not easy to resolve. While legislators may be reluctant to provide full immunity to news organizations, neither should those businesses be required to turn over confidential information to lawyers who are too lazy to do the work they charge clients for.

A modified shield law is not the best solution from the perspective of news organizations, but it would be a step in the right direction toward recognizing that responsible newsgathering is vital to a free and informed society.