Shielding the Shield Law

The media blackout on opposing opinions to the shield law is more pervasive than my local paper's intransigence.

Newspaper editorial pages uniformly support the new federal shield law, protecting journalists’ from divulging their sources. (A Google check fails to find any opposed.) The Center for Responsive Politics describes newspapers’ coordinated lobbying. Their combined circulation is in the tens of millions. The Washington Post spent $91,000 lobbying in 2007, including for the shield law. Contrary views in the far smaller and less influential alternate media, or occasional op-ed’s, have relatively puny weight.

More from the National Association of Manufacturers:

But the funny thing is, you wouldn't know any of this business aspect to the bill from reading today's Washington Post, its lead editorial and two op-eds, would you? The issue is ONLY about the media; a major, private-sector issue loses out to media self-interest.

Which causes us to muse: How many times does that happen, that the media tell a story about a piece of legislation with heat and passion, but only part of the story? Leaving the reader essentially uninformed?

Like I said, half a discussion.

h/t Instapundit

Originally posted in UNCoRRELATED Oct 8 2007