Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said he plans to sponsor a bill that would allow reporters to keep the names of their confidential sources secret, even from criminal prosecutors. Utah is one of just five states that fail to protect reporters in such cases, either through judicial case law or legislation, according to the Utah chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.
"The media is regularly critical of public officials, and I am no exception," Bramble said. "But the ability of the media to get information is one of the things that sets us apart from other countries."
Bramble promises to work with Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and a task force of media representatives, including The Salt Lake Tribune, to draft legislation before the 2006 legislative session begins in January.
Shurtleff was a little surprised - and overjoyed - by Bramble's offer to champion a reporter's shield law. He expected the more conservative members of the Legislature to oppose such a bill, due to frustration with what they consider an overly liberal media, Shurtleff said. But Bramble, an influential Utah County senator whom Shurtleff calls a "bulldog," may have the clout to combat those concerns.
Shurtleff, a Republican, first became interested in a shield law last spring when he rallied 33 attorneys general to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Miller served 85 days in jail for initially refusing to testify in a grand jury investigation into the the leaked identity of a covert CIA agent. Miller eventually testified after being released from her confidentiality pledge by her source, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby subsequently was indicted on obstruction of justice and perjury.
When Shurtleff's federal effort to initiate a reporter's privilege failed, he turned his attention to Utah. He testified on Nov. 2 before the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence, which is still studying the issue.
The Supreme Court or the Legislature could enact a reporter's privilege. Bramble wants the people's elected representatives, not judges, to make the call.
"I'm not willing to abdicate that responsibility to the courts," he said in a Senate Republican Web site.
Mike O'Brien, an attorney who regularly represents The Tribune, doesn't mind if a protection for confidential sources comes from the courts or the Capitol.
"Our society depends on an active, energetic press to inform the public about the good and bad actions of government and business," O'Brien said. "Senator Bramble's actions are both welcome and necessary."
But not all journalists agree with a shield law. Longtime KUTV Channel 2 news reporter Rod Decker said prosecutors should have to prove that a reporter's testimony is absolutely necessary for justice to be served, but he rejects a blanket protection against revealing confidential sources.
"To the extent we can, we should treat people equally before the law," he said. Decker believes judges, not reporters, should decide when a reporter testifies.
The shield law would place journalists in the same category as spouses, attorneys, therapists, priests and police officers - all of whom have some sort of protection against testifying in court, according to Jeff Hunt, the attorney for the Society of Professional Journalists' Utah chapter.
The way Hunt sees it, such a law is necessary because "you want to encourage sources to come forward who [would] not otherwise come forward."
Shurtleff agrees and expects such a law would help law enforcement "solve more crimes" because some sources feel more comfortable talking to a reporter than a police officer. And he wants everyone involved - the reporter, source, police officer and prosecutor - to know the protections and limitations of a reporter's promise of confidentiality.
"It just makes sense to have the rules up front," he said. "I don't see a down side to it."
mcanham@sltrib.com
