NewsGuild’s demands threaten reporter’s privilege

A request from the NewsGuild, the country’s largest journalists’ union, for a judge to force a reporter to expose his sources is raising eyebrows and press freedom concerns.

The NewsGuild’s demand arose from a lawsuit that journalist Mike Elk brought against the union and its officials in Pennsylvania. Elk claims, among other things, that the NewsGuild defamed him after he notified it of sexual harassment allegations against a former official. The NewsGuild, which denies Elk’s allegations, demanded Elk’s communications with sources and another reporter.

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern explains, the NewsGuild’s demands risk setting a dangerous precedent for reporters trying to shield their sources. If the union persists, every lawyer seeking journalists’ sources will argue that “Even the NewsGuild agrees.” And sources will be less likely to talk to journalists if they know the reporter’s privilege goes out the window if the journalist ever decides to sue someone.

The NewsGuild is entitled to aggressively defend itself against Elk’s claims — and we wish Elk had never filed a defamation claim, which could itself threaten press freedom. But a union of journalists shouldn’t be filing legal demands to out sources.

Strong encryption protects journalism

Last Saturday was Global Encryption Day, a worldwide effort to protect end-to-end encryption and defeat proposals that try to undermine it. FPF spoke with Susan McGregor, associate research scholar at Columbia University’s Data Science Institute and co-chair of its Center for Data, Media and Society, about how and why encryption matters to journalists. Check out McGregor’s explanation of what reporting encryption enables, how encryption “backdoors” won’t work, the alternatives lawmakers should consider for protecting children and others online without weakening or outlawing encryption, and more.

Don't make press run a 'contempt' gauntlet

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., recently rejected TV news reporter Catherine Herridge’s attempt to appeal a troubling lower court order requiring her to name a confidential source. The court said Herridge’s appeal was premature because she hadn’t yet been found in contempt of court for defying the order. 

Requiring reporters to risk fines or even jail time before they can appeal orders requiring them to name a confidential source is dangerous, FPF Deputy Advocacy Director Caitlin Vogus writes. Journalists shouldn’t have hope a judge will issue a “friendly contempt” order — imposing only a nominal fine — or will put a contempt order on hold to allow an appeal, especially when a judge may have already proven himself to be anti-press.

For more on how contempt orders actively undermine the exercise of First Amendment rights and serve no purpose in cases where a journalist invokes reporter’s privilege, read the whole post.

What we’re reading

Google’s on Trial. No Looking. We’ve written before about how the biggest antitrust trial in decades is being held under a shroud of secrecy. As FPF’s Vogus told Slate for its reporting on the secrecy issues in the trial, “Without access, and when the public is left in the dark, they’re left wondering what happened, they don’t understand what’s going on, they don’t understand what’s at stake for them.” Thankfully, The Capitol Forum is now posting transcripts of the trial, greatly expanding public access.

Members of Congress make new push to free Julian Assange. A bipartisan group of U.S. representatives and senators will send a letter to executive branch officials explaining why prosecuting Julian Assange is a threat to press freedom. If President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland won’t listen to nearly every press freedom group, five of the world’s leading newspapers, and Australian members of parliament, where Assange is from, maybe they’ll listen to U.S. lawmakers.

Scoop: D.C. lawmakers to introduce new bill funding local news via vouchers. It's great to see lawmakers come up with creative ways governments can address the local news crisis without opening any backdoors for themselves to influence news coverage. If this becomes law in Washington, D.C., it could become a model for the rest of the nation.