What's this "main stream media" business. Sounds to me like there's some bias applied here. Might I remind everyone that the darling of the talk show world, Rush, makes his living by broadcasting on the most main stream of all media - radio. By the way, the proposed law applies to all who are regularly engaged in journalism. That includes those who practice their trade outside the "mainstream media," the Internet jockeys for example.

The fact that there is presently no federal privilege and never has been one seems to cut against its importance. How has the country made it this far without it?

The main stream media has earned the distrust of America. To give only the main stream media protection from breaking the law as now constructed regarding telling the truth to a federal law enforcement officer or federal court makes no sense.

There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument. The prevailing interests likely favor a qualified privilege over an absolute privilege.

without the shield law I think we would lose out as reporters would no longer have access to "breaking stories" from sources they can protect.

The proposed federal shield law does not apply to criminal cases in which a defendant seeks information. The proposed law deals with overzealous prosecutors hauling reporters into a grand jury proceeding on a fishing expedition. Again, I would agree that no shield law should apply to a defendant's right to seek evidence in a criminal trial. There are also exceptions in the proposed law to allow prosecutors to subpoena reporters in cases where it is clear that lives are at stake including terrorist activities.

There is no common law privilege protecting reporters or any other news media personnel, no matter how defined, from the reach of grand jury subpoenas on claim of confidentiality. The Supreme Court has rejected a common law privilege for reporters subpoenaed to give evidence to grand juries.

Justice Powell wrote in Brazburg
"The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct. The balance of these vital constitutional and societal interests on a case-by-case basis accords with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions."