Journalists Tell Congress Federal Law Needed to Protect Confidential Sources

WASHINGTON — Former CBS television investigative reporter Catherine Herridge told a congressional panel Thursday about how reprisals she endured for her reports demonstrate a need for a federal law to protect journalists’ news gathering.

Herridge refused a court order in February to reveal her sources for a story about a Chinese American scientist and college administrator investigated by the FBI as a possible Chinese spy.

The judge overseeing a lawsuit filed by scientist Yanping Chen fined Herridge $800 a day for contempt of court. Days earlier, CBS News fired her and locked her out of their building.

Although the fines are stayed pending appeal, Herridge told a House Judiciary subcommittee the incident shows the shortcomings of a legal and political system that can override First Amendment protections of a free press.

“I feel we’re in a very dangerous place as journalists,” Herridge said.

In January, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill entitled the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act.

The bill prohibits the federal government from compelling journalists and providers of telecommunications services to disclose certain protected information, except in limited circumstances such as to prevent terrorism or imminent violence. The protected information includes confidential news sources.

The proposed legislation is pending in the Senate. The House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government called the hearing Thursday to encourage the Senate to approve it.

“I hope I am the last journalist who has to spend two years in the federal courts to protect my sources,” Herridge said.

She added, “Forcing reporters to reveal confidential sources would have a crippling effect on investigative journalism.”

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws to protect reporters from the need to reveal confidential news sources. They are known as “shield” laws.

Each of the state laws is worded and interpreted differently.

There is no federal shield law, only an assortment of federal court judgments on freedom of the press. 

The leading case is Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing inflammatory speech unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Journalists and their advocates at the congressional hearing said the Brandenburg ruling provided them minimal protection from government reprisal because it can be interpreted numerous ways.

“It leaves journalists in a lurch,” said Nadine Farid Johnson, policy director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

Mary Cavallaro, chief broadcast officer for the SAG-AFTRA labor organization, said the PRESS Act could fill a gap in federal protections for journalists.

“This long overdue legislation represents a leap forward,” she said.

Sharyl Attkisson, managing editor of her own syndicated television program called “Full Measure,” discussed Justice Department surveillance of her news gathering about the 2012 terrorist attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

She said her phone was tapped but yet there was no legal means of preventing the government intrusion.

“Wrongdoers in government have their own shield laws that protect them from accountability,” Attkisson said.

CBS News officials deny Herridge was fired as a reprisal for her confidential news gathering. They described her job termination as a staff downsizing.

You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter