Calie Siplon
Editor-In-Cheif
Wyoming is known for many things including being the first state to allow women to vote, hosting most of Yellowstone National Park and being the second smallest state in America regarding its population.
However, Wyoming is the only state in America without protections for journalists and their anonymous sources. Most states in America have different laws protecting journalists who will not give confidential information to law enforcement, but Wyoming is the singular state without any at all.
“[Shield laws] have been in place for around 40 years, and Wyoming is the only state without any protection for journalists for anonymous sources. It’s probably overdue,” said the Wyoming Association of Broadcaster (WAB) President and Lobbyist Laura Grott.
The laws grant confidentiality to sources in need so there is no backlash against them. Most commonly, this law is used in cases of whistleblowing and sexual assault victims to protect them and their privacy.
“We have never brought this legislation to the legislature [but] I know there is a lot of interest in it. I think Wyofile tweeted ‘Thank you broadcasters, we need it’ [in response to the bill],” said Grott.
While the WAB has recently put the shield law high on their list of priorities with the backing of Charles Pelkey, a member of the Wyoming state legislature and former Casper Star Tribune reporter, the Wyoming Press Association (WPA) has not been as eager, using the argument that the First Amendment should be enough protection.
“In the era of ‘fake news’ accusations, I think it would be particularly harmful for an industry of journalists to ask for an additional right to protect sources beyond what we already enjoy under the Constitution,” said Bob Bonnar, a now semi-retired WPA lobbyist, in the Dec. 2018 edition of the WPA newsletter.
“Taken in context, at the time we were lobbying pretty hard for the public records bill. There are still those in the legislature and state government who would like to see that bill watered down and I don’t want to muddy the waters by asking for a shield law,” Bonnar said to the Branding Iron.
While Bonnar said he only speaks for himself, he said the first amendment gives journalists enough protection.
“I believe that the first amendment provides us with protection that no other industry has. We would be asking the state of wyoming to protect us from the state of wyoming and it is unnecessary,” said Bonnar. “The main point is that a shield law is a solution looking for a problem. There are no journalists sitting in jail because they won’t reveal sources, none of these things have happened. So the law is completely unnecessary,”
Bonnar is correct that there have been no jailings as of Nov. 14 over a journalist not giving away their sources, but there have been a few journalists who have been subpoenaed. To be subpoenaed means that there have been journalists who have been called into court in order to force a written or spoken statement in regards to their anonymous sources.
To be subpoenaed is not the same as being arrested for lack of cooperation, but it is a slippery slope.
A good example is the case of Judith Miller, as reported by the reporter’s committee earlier this year. Judith was a journalist for The New York Times and was jailed for about two months, when she refused to testify against her sources in an investigation where a Central Intelligence Agency officer’s name was leaked.
When it comes to a shield law, while it might not be necessary now, in the twenty-first century where fiction can be easily portrayed as fact, journalists have to ask the question of whether or not the safety of their source is more important. Especially in cases of whistleblowing and tragedy, like sexual assault or school shootings.
The answer is as simple as asking whether or not journalists should be working to report the news as it happens, or as the government says it should happen.
