If the results of recent public opinion polls are to be believed, people who work in the news media are not high in the estimation of the American public. Most of us are pretty well fed, rarely break a sweat at work, and seem to enjoy privileges like moving with the high and mighty and being offered special treatment at venues all over town.

The fact is, much like any other profession, there are plenty of jerks who work in the news business, and among them are more than a few who carry political or social agendas that they would choose to keep private. Sadly, it has become a strategy of political operatives to undermine the otherwise solid work of many in the news business by questioning the motives of reporters, and it seems to have been working.

Currently, there is an effort among journalists to push for a federal "shield law," a legal guarantee that news people have the right to keep confidential the names of sources for their news stories. We believe that, despite the potential for abuse of such a shelter among some of our media colleagues, such a shield is vital for this news business and for the public's right to know. In this belief, the Dorchester Reporter has signed on to support the statement of a national organization of media organizations calling for a federal shield law, and we print that statement below:

As reporters, editors, and publishers affiliated with NCM, a coalition of 700 ethnic media organizations in the United States, we join all our colleagues in journalism in protesting the imprisonment of Judith Miller of the New York Times and calling for a national shield law legislation that protects journalists from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources.

The prosecution of journalists for refusing to reveal their confidential sources is a serious threat to the fourth estate's ability to report the news and investigate instances of wrongdoing such as corporate malfeasance, political abuse, organized crime and government corruption, in which confidential sources are indispensable. Our inability to protect the identity of whistleblowers and eyewitnesses undermines the public‚s right to know and, ultimately, the administration of justice.

During the past year more than 70 journalists and news organizations have been entangled in federal court over access to unpublished, confidential information. Several have been subpoenaed for their records or testimony. Jim Taricani, a television reporter in Rhode Island, served a sentence for refusing to identify an anonymous source. At least nine journalists - including Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine- have been held in contempt and face the threat of imprisonment or heavy fines or both.

These prosecuted journalists work for mainstream media organizations. They were vulnerable despite their organizations‚ resources and high public profile. Their plight has an especially chilling effect on reporters, editors and publishers of ethnic media, which are far more isolated even though our media reach one out of four American adults (NCM National Poll, June 2005).

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia, through legislation or court decision, have adopted "shield laws" that protect journalists from having to divulge sources of information given them in confidence. Some federal courts recognize such a shield, but most do not. It is time for a national shield law that recognizes journalists as unique watchdogs of the public good.

- Ed Forry