Half a Discussion

My local paper prints this lament from a reader:

Though I've had more than 100 letters to the editor published, I've never been able to get one printed about the shield law. It seems there are just some subjects on which the Deseret Morning News will brook no opposition.

I’ve wondered the same thing. Monday morning I also sent the DesNews a letter in response to their endorsement of the shield law in last Sunday’s Edition.

I checked the paper each day this week and the only response on the subject was Clark’s letter this morning. I’m not as prolific as he is – I’ve only sent the paper five letters in five years – but of the three they did not print, two were responses to the paper’s opinions on the shield law. I also note the comments to their editorial in their electronic edition overwhelmingly oppose the shield law.

The paper can print or not print what it wants, but their lack of an adequate discussion on the shield law underscores my point they can not be trusted with the responsibility they are asking for.

At least I have another forum for the letter:

Editor (Deseret News),

A shield law, exempting reporters from laws others must follow, will engender more abuse than public good. Without the shield, opines the Deseret News “people with information about official corruption become less likely to tell what they know” (“Time is right for shield law” – 30 Sept). But the only reporter they mention is Judith Miller who was jailed for protecting a target of a government corruption investigation – not a whistle-blower. The mention of Miller inadvertently highlights what the paper fails to inform us: a shield law would embolden corrupt officials to misuse access to information for political purposes.

Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry has exercised his right to refuse release of his military service record. The shield law would enable a corrupt official, however, to leak such information with impunity. Are we to expect the good will of unelected reporters, such as Dan Rather who concocted a story based on fake documents, to protect citizens from malcontents in the IRS, FBI, CIA or several dozen other government agencies?

Major media outlets have shown an inclination to run stories supplied by government employees with partisan agendas. A shield law will only increase such abuse thus doing more harm than good.

Dave Calder

Originally posted in UNCoRRELATED Oct 5 2007