The Philadelphia Inquirer
June 25, 2006
Excerpt:
The Inquirer: Traditionally,
the United States (like almost all other countries) has modified
constitutional rights of free speech during wartime, including the
rights of the media to report on security matters. Given that the
struggle against terror is a special kind of war, wouldn't one expect
that some curbs would be established? Why is the present governmental
attitude any more "ominous" than these historical curbs?
Mark Bowden: The only thing
more ominous is the threat to prosecute reporters, which is something
unprecedented, at least in modern times. Given the open-ended and
rather vague nature of the current conflict - one that nearly everyone
believes will last throughout our lifetimes -- aggressive government
action against the press could become standard practice. I would see
this as a serious and quite possible permanent erosion of press
freedom. [...]
Inquirer: Why should there be a
"shield" law? Many people think that journalists are just
special-pleading because the recent attacks on unnamed sources hurt
their jobs.
Bowden: There should be a
shield law because journalism plays a vitally important role in society
as a check on government power. It is critically important in a
democracy that citizens have current, accurate, timely information. In
my experience as a reporter, government is notoriously unreliable at
delivering these things.
