Wyoming and the federal government are the only two places that do not have some sort of press shield law (the situation in places like Puerto Rico and Guam is generally not mentioned). So, sure, there should be a federal shield law: 49-2 is not just the breakdown of the Electoral College in 1984, it is pretty strong evidence something is wrong. The problem is that shield laws tend not to be absolute. So, it probably would not help the two reporters in the news today, one who will sent to jail for not revealing her source(s) -- even after the anonymity was waived. After all, the outing of a CIA agent is a serious crime, and this is just not the typical whistleblower situation.
Some, such as Mark Kleiman, are rather cynical about the concerns for the press in this case. The suggestion that Judith Miller et. al. are to blame for the election of George Bush and the next few Supreme Court justices seems to be a bit exaggerated. Nonetheless, who knows. If the press actually fully reported this story (and many knew the sources but didn't tell), who knows if it would help 2% of the population in relevant areas to switch their votes in 2004. Anyway, Judith Miller's true "crime" was her reporting on WMDs.
But, as Kevin Drum says in a worthwhile discussion, a principle is involved here, not just people. Still, following the lead of my last post, it's a rather bloody bad application. A basic gut feeling I have had for awhile is that the media has in effect not done their job here. The "sources" ARE the story to a large degree. By not fully airing out the details, especially after the sources waived anonymity (admittedly under some duress, but Karl Rove? come on!), they went against the whole point of the privilege.
The whole idea of privileges is that the benefits outweigh the costs of not testifying or whatever. For instance, attorney/client privilege. I am unclear what the benefit has been in this case: the whole story continues to be muddled and questions left unanswered, in part because of the source protection. Robert Novak is a slimeball, obviously. Still, given how the mainstream press has been suspect in truly addressing the problems of this administration, their concern would be a bit more sympathetic if the source protection (even if they do not have clean hands) actually FURTHERED the pursuit of the truth.
I'm unclear how this truly occurred. We should point to the true villains here: the Bush Administration, though BTC News notes that some inkling is being made that one or more members of the press themselves spread the "outing" (to confirm it?) in their questioning. But, the press doesn't come off well either. I'm sure the prosecutor is free from blame either. So, blame can be shifted around. And, until the facts come out, I don't know if the testimony in this case is worth the cost. Cost that sure will come, since (check Drum) shield laws often actually are worth having, even if this is a hard case.
Still for those not crying for Argentina tonight, I understand.