I'm not one of those people who think a reporter has a right to withhold information (like the name of a source) during a legal investigation. In fact, I don't think that reporters, or news organizations for that matter, should have any special legal deference, let alone rights. The first amendment right to freedom of the press resides in the people, just like all the other rights in the Bill of Rights, not in any particular member of the press alone.
I think we'd better off if you just had to show inaccuracy and damage for anyone to collect on libel, so I certainly don't think a journalist shield law is a good thing. As a blogger, I don't think I'm entitled to anything extra that just being in the United States doesn't provide, because I don't think a reporter, editor, or publisher should get anything extra either. If a company can be forced to pay damages for a defective product, a news company should be forced to pay damages for a defective, i.e. inaccurate or misleading, product.
I think the idea that we need a law to grant special privileges to members of the press ignores the current reality - the chief stumbling block to the press today isn't their accountability to universal responsibilities, but a lack of accountability to the public itself. And the currently proposed shield law, or any other such shield law, doesn't do a darn thing to fix that.
