Shield law needed to protect journalists

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
Dear friend of press freedom,

Here are some of the most important stories we’re following from the U.S. and around the world. If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please forward it to friends and family. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here ([link removed]) .

Kamoteus (A New Beginning), via Flickr, CC BY 2.0. Local news organizations are the lifeblood of many communities, but decreasing revenues have caused thousands to die out in recent years.


** Give local news a financial boost
------------------------------------------------------------

Thousands of local newspapers ([link removed]) have closed in America since 2005, silencing the “heartbeat ([link removed]) ” of many communities. Now, a new bill in Congress aims to help small struggling news outlets survive these financial headwinds.

The Community News and Small Business Support Act ([link removed]) is a bipartisan bill that would give tax credits to small businesses that advertise in local media and a payroll tax credit to local news outlets that employ reporters in their communities. According to the Rebuild Local News coalition ([link removed]) , the payroll credit could provide newsrooms with as much as $85,000 over the course of five years for each full-time local journalist they employ.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is proud to support this bill, which is similar to a measure from the last Congress, the Local Journalism Sustainability Act ([link removed]) . Importantly, this new proposal is carefully drafted to focus on the size and local nature of the news outlets that benefit and wouldn’t let the government pick partisan favorites or otherwise influence news coverage.

Read our blog post unpacking the bill ([link removed]) to find out more about how it would work and what else we need to do to boost local news.

Court decision shows need for PRESS Act

We’ve written before ([link removed]) about the subpoena seeking to compel former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge to reveal a confidential source for her reporting about an FBI investigation into a Chinese American scientist. Now a court has ordered ([link removed]) Herridge to disclose her source, threatening to undermine a critical foundation of investigative reporting: the ability of journalists to promise confidentiality to their sources.

This decision shows the limits of current protections for journalists and sources. Although Herridge can (and should) appeal, every time reporters are compelled to burn their sources, it chills whistleblowers and others from talking to the press.

As our Deputy Director of Advocacy Caitlin Vogus explained to CNN ([link removed]) , “Putting a reporter’s shield into federal law is essential to protect journalists, sources, and the public’s right to know.” We need a federal shield law, like the PRESS Act, ([link removed]) to stop the government and private parties from using journalists as their own private investigators.

Proposals to punish Fox News are sure to backfire

Lawmakers and others have tried to capitalize on public outrage over Fox News’ 2020 election coverage with shortsighted political stunts that will only open the door to unconstitutional retaliation against future disfavored speakers.

Bills in both chambers of Congress would eliminate tax deductions for settlement payments and judgments in defamation cases. The sponsors of the bills have publicly acknowledged that their proposals are intended to target Fox News in light of its $787 million defamation settlement ([link removed]) with Dominion Voting Systems.

It’s arguable that payments to resolve lawsuits should never be tax deductible. But as long as they are, singling out lawsuits involving political speech from everything else corporations get sued for is inconsistent with — if not downright violative of — the First Amendment.

Similarly, efforts to cancel the broadcast licenses of Fox-owned local broadcasters that had nothing to do with the cable network’s election coverage are certain to backfire when the shoe’s on the other foot. In fact, former President Trump floated canceling NBC licenses in retaliation for that network’s coverage of his administration. We opposed it then ([link removed]) and we oppose it now. Read more on our blog ([link removed]) .


** What we’re reading
------------------------------------------------------------

Blinken tells Australia that WikiLeaks founder is accused of ‘very serious’ crime ([link removed]) . Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said last week that Julian Assange is accused of “very serious criminal conduct,” pushing back against the Australian government’s concerns that the case has “dragged for too long.” But Assange’s supposed "very serious" crime is obtaining and publishing classified documents — no different from the acts of countless journalists. Regardless of what you think of Assange, prosecuting him threatens to criminalize routine newsgathering. If President Biden’s Department of Justice cares about freedom of the press, it needs to drop this case ([link removed]) .

Should police officer names be kept secret? Chesterfield department says yes ([link removed]) . A Virginia police department is claiming it can keep the names of nearly every police officer in its force secret because “[a]t some point, any officer could go ‘undercover.’” The Richmond Times-Dispatch politely calls this interpretation of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act “untested.” We’d say it’s ludicrous. America doesn’t have secret police. The Virginia General Assembly apparently agrees, since it recently rejected an attempt to amend the state’s public records law to exclude officer names from disclosure. But if Virginia courts accept this absurd interpretation of the law, it won’t be long before police departments in other states try to pull the same nonsense.

How Privacy Laws Protect the Powerful, but Keep the Public in the Dark ([link removed]) . Turns out the federal government is no slouch when it comes to hiding information about public officials either. There’s already a federal law ([link removed]) that lets judges restrict information about themselves and their families online, hindering reporting on judicial ethics. But Congress isn’t stopping there. A new bill ([link removed]) would allow lawmakers to similarly censor the internet, writes the Daily Beast, “undercut[ting] Americans’ right to learn about and monitor public officials by pulling a veil of secrecy around even the most basic personal information about them.” If it became law, it would kill — or at least weaken — important stories, including this one
([link removed]) in yesterday’s New York Times. Legitimate privacy concerns are one thing, but Congress shouldn’t use privacy as an excuse to chip away at the public’s right to know about the conduct (and misconduct) of government officials.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2023 Freedom of the Press Foundation, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:
Freedom of the Press Foundation
49 Flatbush Ave, #1017
Brooklyn, NY 11217
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.