Legislation co-sponsored by Mike Pence, who represents the Anderson area in the House of Representatives, is known as the media-shield bill.

Using its broader applications, it could be called the public-shield bill, because that is precisely what it is intended to do — shield the public interest from overaggressive courts that would force media representatives to reveal their sources.

The bill is designed to help journalists, including those working online, probe potential wrongdoing in public affairs by protecting the identity of whistle-blowers who have inside knowledge of unethical or illegal activity but fear reprisals if their names are used. The legislation was approved Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.

Thirty-two states, including Indiana, have laws protecting journalists from being forced to reveal unnamed sources, but the nation needs an overarching law that extends the same protection to investigative journalists everywhere. Many journalists take their mission seriously enough to flirt with a jail sentence in the protection of sources. But many sources would clam up if they knew the journalist would have to choose between jail time and following a court order.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration opposes the media-shield bill, arguing that it could compromise national security by protecting sources who divulge government secrets, military plans and other sensitive information.

There is a balance to be struck between the public’s right to know and the government’s duty to protect the public. This bill includes language that may tilt the balance too far in the direction of security interests. It stipulates that reporters would not be protected from court orders under certain conditions:

- All reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted.

- Investigators have sound reason to believe the information withheld by the journalist is critical to solve a criminal case.

- The information is critical to the completion of a civil case.

- The information is essential to preventing a terrorist attack, bodily harm or death.

- The information is essential in identifying someone who has exposed trade secrets.

Some argue that the media-shield bill is not necessary because courts have clearly established that journalists and their sources are routinely protected from intrusive subpoenas. But recent cases clearly demonstrate the need for federal protection. Chief among them is the 85-day imprisonment in 2005 of Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who at first refused to divulge the identity of White House administrators who gave her information about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Though it is not perfect, the media-shield law is a necessary measure to protect journalists like Miller and, more importantly, the public’s right to know.