On July 30th, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously adopted language that would create a shield law to help shield journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources. Massachusetts is one of a nine states that currently lacks a shield law.
Senator Rebecca Raush’s amendment, added to broader state public records legislation, would prohibit a court, grand jury or other member of the government with subpoena power from compelling a journalist or news organization to testify about, produce or otherwise disclose the identity of a confidential source of information.
The News/Media Alliance commends the Massachusetts Senate for the effort to protect a free press and will continue to work with the Massachusetts News Paper Association and other journalism advocates to push the measure forward as House and Senate leadership negotiate a final public records package.
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
andrewbaron
I think this is a good idea for any state—though it probably belongs at the federal level. The critical missing piece is defining what qualifies as a journalist. These protections should be tied to a meaningful commitment to recognized journalistic standards, not simply to working in media.
That distinction matters because not everyone producing media is practicing journalism. Influencers, bloggers, and even traditional news organizations may claim to follow ethical frameworks such as the SPJ Code of Ethics while failing to consistently uphold them.
A particularly stark example is Alden Global Capital’s newspapers. The Denver Post, for example, publicly commits to SPJ-style ethical standards, yet there are numerous instances where its conduct appears inconsistent with those commitments. In recent litigation, Alden’s attorneys argued that The Denver Post has no legal obligation to comply with the standards it publicly promises to follow.
If shield laws are intended to protect journalism rather than merely media employment, then eligibility should depend on adherence to genuine journalistic practices and ethical standards.
One reason this matters is that I’m involved in a case where the reporter was himself the anonymous source. In a situation like that, shield law protections make little sense. A reporter should not be able to invoke source confidentiality to conceal that the “anonymous source” was actually himself. That would allow someone to make anonymous factual claims, present them with the added credibility of journalism, and then prevent a court from examining whether those claims were truthful. Shield laws are intended to protect legitimate confidential sources, not to insulate reporters from scrutiny over their own factual assertions.
Monday, August 3 Report this