Dig Deeper Texas

Is this unreasonable?

MySA.com: State Government

The so-called shield legislation would require prosecutors or civil litigants to show convincing reasons why information held by journalists is central to their case and can’t be obtained any other way.

This could include justifying requests for the identity of a reporter’s confidential source or access to video footage or interview information, even if it was never broadcast or published.

Apparently Barry Macha thinks so.

MySA.com: State Government

Barry Macha, the district attorney in Wichita Falls, said he plans to testify that unaired footage obtained by prosecutors from CBS News helped convict one of the three defendants in the 1998 dragging death of James Byrd Jr.

“If there’s evidence of a crime that is admissible, relevant, which is more important — to use that for the prosecution purposes or for the media to write about it and air it?” he asked.

It seems to me that if it was the only source of information available for convictions, CBS would still have had to give up the information under this law.

Here’s where I think the real opposition is:

MySA.com: State Government

A similar piece of legislation failed by one vote in 2005 under fierce opposition from the San Antonio-based financial services giant USAA.

The company sued San Antonio’s WOAI-TV in 2004 after it aired a story about USAA’s outsourcing of jobs to India. The story was based on a videotape and documents supplied by a source in the company.

USAA sought to get the reporter to give up a document that would reveal the source’s identity. It argued that the documents were stolen and contained confidential company information. The lawsuit was settled in March 2006.

Phil Goldberg, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing USAA and other business interests, said his clients are worried the proposed law could undermine trade secrets and confidential corporate information.

Think of the multitude of sins that could be protected under “trade secrets and confidential corporate information?” Think about it. Even if what the company is doing is illegal, it could still take the journalist to court because the documents were confidential. Would you rather err on the side of protecting businesses that might be hiding illegal or dangerous activity or on the side of a journalist that might be undermining a company’s image even though the activity is legal although unpopular?

Technorati Tags: shield law, Texas, journalist shield law, SB 966, Rodney Ellis, Barry Macha, Robert Duncan, USAA, Phil Goldberg, Texas Daily Newspapers Association

Filed under: Barry Macha, Phil Goldberg, Robert Duncan, Rodney Ellis, SB 966, Texas Daily Newspaper Association, USAA, journalist shield law, shield law, texas