PRESS WATCH : Shield Protection

Superior Court Judge Bernard Kamins backed away Friday from his earlier suggestion that a Times reporter could be fined $1,500 daily for refusing to divulge a confidential news source. That was a wise and welcome decision.

But the single $1,500 fine that still stands continues to represent an unacceptable challenge in principle to the state constitutional right to protect a news source. That right is one fundamental not only to people in the news business, but to the public’s ability to get the news.

To report that news, the press sometimes needs to protect sources. Without an understanding that their identities would not be revealed, many sources would not cooperate with reporters. The issue arose from coverage of the Rodney King beating case. Times reporter Richard Serrano on May 21 wrote an account that contained detailed excerpts from the report prepared by the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division. The story followed a gag order issued by Kamins that forbade all officials involved in the case from discussing or releasing official files. So after the Times story appeared, Kamins demanded to know the source of the story. Citing the state shield law, Serrano refused to reveal it.

Even though the fine has been greatly reduced, The Times has not paid the fine and is considering its legal options--not because of the amount but because of the principle. If the shield law is to have any meaning, any attempt to whittle away at the public’s right to know must be fought, even when the intent is essentially without malice.