October 2, 2009 2:01 PM

Media Shield Bill Faces New Hurdles

By
CBSNews
(AP)  A key Senate sponsor of a bill to protect reporters' sources in federal court said Thursday the Obama administration has unexpectedly tried to weaken the protections.

Supporters of the so-called media shield bill must now decide whether to proceed without counting on administration support.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said several weeks ago that he expected the administration would agree to a bill he could support, especially in cases involving leaks of national security information. He now sharply criticizes the Democratic administration.

"The administration's opposition to the core of this bill came as a complete surprise and doesn't show much concern for compromise. This turns the bill's near-certain passage into an uphill fight," Schumer said.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said negotiations are continuing, and President Barack Obama supports a strong media shield law.

"Consistent with his support for openness and transparency in government, the president has long believed that the law should protect the confidentiality of reporters' sources unless there is a significant security risk," LaBolt said.

"This is the first administration in history to support media shield legislation, and we are engaged in a dialogue with members of the Senate in an effort to pass the first-ever federal media shield law with bipartisan support."

The key issue is whether a federal judge - in cases of national security leaks - would be required to balance the public's right to know against the need to protect national security.

Schumer was hoping for a compromise that would lay out the standards the government on one hand, and the journalist on the other, would have to meet to win in court. A judge would then balance the competing arguments.

Instead, the administration suggested there should be no balancing test in cases where the government is trying to identify a leaker who harmed national security.

Schumer believes this would make a shield law meaningless.

The bill, supported by more than 70 journalism organizations including The Associated Press, would only apply to federal courts and leave intact state protections for journalists and their sources.

The House already has passed a media shield bill.

AP
Add a Comment
by starleo146 October 2, 2009 10:18 PM EDT
We had them beat in 2001 but we pulled most of the troops out to go to Irag and just kept a small force there. I just think the al queda and Taliban had plenty of time to build there equipment and ammunition back and that is what we are seeing now not sure. When Daddy Bush got into Irag but stopped short of going to Baghdad when Junior Bush went back once again Iraq was better prepared and the rest is history, 8 yrs of heavy fighting, we will have to do the same in Afghanistan I am afraid.
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage October 2, 2009 8:19 PM EDT
Schumer is correct! Without the 'balancing test' the shield law would be meaningless!

What a surprise! From the president who declares himself verbally to be for transparency and change, while 'behind the scenes', he and his minions work for just the opposite!

That's not nice, Mr.President! You disappoint so!
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou October 2, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
Not shielding sources, other than in cases where security risks are involved, is a good way to put an end to investigative journalism.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns1 October 2, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
"This is the first administration in history to support media shield legislation, and we are engaged in a dialogue with members of the Senate in an effort to pass the first-ever federal media shield law with bipartisan support."
========================

I agree with Obama. I don't know what the problem is. Without a free press we are cooked. And besides, Obama excludes those cases which information released pose a serious national security risk.

I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to this.

I know one thing. I am quickly getting sick of the politics as usual circus that is destroying this nation. From BOTH sides.
Reply to this comment
by ToolMangler1 October 3, 2009 5:04 PM EDT
"I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to this."



I can Imagine why!!
It makes an end run around Habeas Corpus and allows anyone to make unsupported accusations without fear of exposure.....
Everyone is guaranteed a right to face their accuser in court..

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me....
(And cite sources)
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook