Issue date: 10/1/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

Too often I feel today's mainstream media buries the importance of the true role of journalism in our society.

Crucial contributions to our democracy by real journalists are unfortunately drowned out by the blather of the pompous, cable news talking heads, who, for whatever reason, think people really want to hear radical opinions screamed at them instead of real news.

But the fact is, good journalism still exists.

Which is why a bill passed by the State Assembly last week that would protect reporters and their confidential sources is a notable step toward protecting a crucial aspect of democracy.

For those who are not familiar with what goes on behind the scenes of down-and-dirty investigative reporting, it can either make or break the credibility, reputation and career of both the journalist and the subject of the story.

Reporters who dig up a scandal that damages someone's reputation can find themselves in court, having to prove all information in the story.

Many times, those kind of controversial stories involve the use of anonymous sources.

That's where the new shield law would come in.

Those sources also have a lot to lose if their identity is revealed. Whether it's speaking out against an employer or giving inside information on a dangerous criminal, damage can be done.

In such legal dilemmas, the law would not require reporters to reveal the names of their sources.

Some reporters, who have truly respected sources' requests for anonymity, have done just that in the past, regardless of the law.

But some of those reporters have paid the ultimate price, whether in jail time, lawsuit settlements or a swift exit out of the field of journalism.

We all know about Watergate and other huge stories that have been broken with anonymous sources.

However, legal issues involving investigative reporting don't only happen with the largest, well-known publications.

A great example of the need for this shield law is unfolding as you read this, in our very own community.

Over the past year, Leader-Telegram reporter Julian Emerson has pursued one of the biggest scandals in our area in quite a long time.

Emerson broke the news of ex-Eau Claire School District Superintendent Bill Klaus' attempt to obtain his retirement stipend early. That story eventually led to Klaus' temporary suspension from the district and now, a lawsuit.

Fortunately, as a part-time reporter at the Leader-Telegram, I was lucky enough to sit in a cubicle next to Emerson throughout the process.

I often overheard Emerson on the phone for hours ­- strictly off the record, with confidential sources - a learning experience for a young reporter to say the least.

I can attest to Emerson's selfless passion for delivering the accurate truth to the public.

As Klaus' lawsuit against the school district moves forward, Emerson says he may have to testify - and he may be asked to reveal some of his sources.

After seeing his painstaking pursuit of truth and the energy that he poured into that investigation, it is incomprehensible that Emerson could legally be required to choose between his own career or the careers of those who helped make the public aware of the dishonesty running rampant in their children's school system.

To be fair, Wisconsin courts have ruled in favor of reporters in some cases regarding anonymous sources.

But until anonymity in reporting is protected by law, too may great journalists will suffer consequences for simply doing their civic duty.

Unfortunately, the bill still leaves room for judges to order

reporters to testify when the information is "highly relevant" or critical to one party's argument if attorneys deem the information unobtainable by any other means.

But it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Rob's Reckonings is a weekly column. You can contact Hanson, The Spectator's editorial editor, at hansonrw@uwec.edu.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools