Friday, March 20, 2009
Should Texas reporters be forced to reveal their confidential sources? Before you answer, consider the consequences.While it may seem like a simple question, the ramifications of your answer are far-reaching and affect us all.Take for example two of the biggest statewide news stories of the last few years, the widespread physical and sexual abuse scandal within Texas Youth Commission facilities and hundreds of mobile telephones illegally smuggled inside Texas' 'Death Row'. Both stories initially saw the light of day because of anonymous tips provided by confidential sources or “whistle-blowers” to the news media – and because of brave reporters and their news organizations who chose to place the greater public interest over personal and professional risks, without legal protection.Unlike 36 other states that provide some type of protection, either a qualified or absolute privilege against forced disclosure, Texas does not have a free flow of information act for journalists’ sources. The only recourse journalists have to protect sources is their willingness to resist a subpoena and suffer the consequences. In some cases, those consequences can be jail. In other cases, there can be enormous financial exposure for the media company who employs the journalist.It is a risk journalists in Texas take every day. For example:• In recent years, one large market TV station with a full-time investigative unitreceived a subpoena almost once every 6-7 days.• Large market Texas newspapers typically receive 10-20 subpoenas a year.• A Dallas TV station received four subpoenas in one day.• The number of subpoenas served on smaller market Texas newspapers varies,but many report 2-3 subpoenas a year.If Texas already had a free flow of information act on the books one must wonder if a former or current employee of the Peanut Corporation of America's plant in Plainview would have stepped forward to point out the potentially deadly production of peanut products before that plant voluntarily ceased operations Feb. 23 (Nationwide, the company has been linked to a nationwide salmonella outbreak that sickened 600 people and reportedly killed nine others).We all deserve better and it's encouraging that a growing number of elected officials are listening and beginning to take action. This past week in Austin, without fanfare and with little public recognition, a group of elected State Representatives did the right thing: they voted to protect us. They did so by voting 7-1 to pass House Bill 670, known as the Free Flow of Information Act (FFOIA), out of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee. We commend Chairman Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, for his leadership on this issue of important public policy and applaud the other committee members who voted yes on the measure: Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas; Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas; Rep. Will Hartnett-Dallas; Rep. David Leibowitz, D-San Antonio; Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson; and Rep. Armando Martinez, D-Weslaco.It is an encouraging beginning of a multi-step process before any free flow of information act will ever land on the Governor's desk for approval. During the last legislative session, significant headway was made toward adopting a FFOIA in Texas. Legislation passed in both Senate and House committees unanimously, passed the Senate in a 27-4 floor vote and was poised to pass the Texas House when it was killed by a parliamentary point of order on the last day for Senate bills to be considered by the House on second reading. We can't allow this to happen again. The stakes are just too great.That’s because a Free Flow of Information Act isn’t about protecting the journalist – it’s about protecting the public. Without a law to allow whistleblowers to remain confidential the public will never learn of many scandals and outrageous abuses by government officials and corporate executives.Sources often will provide more information and act with more candor in notifying journalists of very real concerns about consumer safety, governmental abuse, etc., if they can be guaranteed anonymity. Without an assurance of anonymity, many conscientious citizens with evidence of wrongdoing would stay silent. They would rightly fear for their jobs, their reputations – even, in some cases, their safety.Passage of such a law benefits the public by increasing the free flow of information, improving protection from governmental abuse, and enhancing the health and welfare of the general public by allowing witnesses or others with knowledge of information of wrongdoing to speak to the public through the media without fear of reprisal.It isn’t a new concept nor is it disrespectful of law enforcement. The oldest U.S. free flow of information act dates back to 1898. Some of the most conservative, law and order states have such a statute on the books, such as Alabama, Georgia, Montana and Arizona. Ronald Reagan signed the law amending California’s Free Flow of Information statute in the 1960’s. Protecting the free flow of information ensures that wrongdoers will be exposed – and prosecuted.It’s time for Texas to become the 37th state to protect those individuals who are brave enough to come forward with information that benefits the public. They deserve it and so do you. A companion bill, Senate Bill 915, is pending before the Senate Jurisprudence Committee.Keith Elkins is the Executive Director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
Posted by Keith Elkins, Executive Director at 10:39 AM 0 comments
Friday, March 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
