Coalition: Lack of press shield law makes Mass. an outlier

Yahoo

21 hours ago

BOSTON (SHNS) – Massachusetts is one of just nine states without a 'press shield law' that a media advocacy coalition says would to protect journalists from being required to disclose their confidential sources and other sensitive information in court.
Coalition members including the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and Boston Globe Media say they're making a stronger push this session for a bill (S 1253, H 1738) that would provide 'clear safeguards' for confidential sources and sensitive material so that journalists can fulfill their 'constitutionally protected watchdog role.'
'It is absolutely obvious that we are in a time where we need to pay attention to the shortfall and failure, to date, of Massachusetts to actually pass a press shield law that we so desperately need, given what is happening in the national sphere,' longtime bill sponsor Sen. Becca Rausch said on Wednesday.
No version of the bill has ever cleared the Judiciary Committee. Organizers said the bill has been proposed for around 15 years, but that they tracked the concept back to the 1970s.
The bill is modeled after the federal Press Act, which the U.S. House passed unanimously in 2024. According to Bob Ambrogi, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, one of the reasons the coalition chose the federal bill as its model was because it had been 'vetted by pretty much every major news organization in the country' and leading media lawyers.
If passed, journalists would not have to name sources or disclose confidential newsgathering information unless the disclosure is necessary to prevent 'an act of terrorism' or 'a threat of imminent violence, bodily harm, or death.' Unless a court finds similar threats, state officials would not be able to force third-party email or phone providers to disclose sensitive records, and journalists and news organizations would be notified before their records are sought by state officials.
Organizers referenced Massachusetts cases in which journalists were challenged when protecting their anonymous sources, namely a 2022 case between the Berkshire Eagle and the Springfield Diocese and another case involving the Boston Globe, Dana Farber Cancer Institute and a physician at the hospital. Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of Boston Globe Media Dan Krockmalnic said the Globe has filed more than a dozen motions in the last few years to fight subpoenas for information about reporters and sources.
The financial burden and time-consuming nature of those kinds of cases, House bill sponsor Rep. Rich Haggerty said, puts local news specifically at a disadvantage.
'Every single time we see a local news organization challenged, spending resources and money on protecting what should be a First Amendment right already protected — and this law would help that — we know they're not spending those resources on informing our communities,' Haggerty said.
Past opposition includes law enforcement, which media lawyer Jon Albano said was concerned that its ability to investigate a crime that has been in the news could be stymied if they aren't able to subpoena a reporter to find out who they've spoken with.
'In general, there's probably some other way they can figure out how to get to that source or get to that information, but it's kind of a shortcut to subpoena the reporter and say, 'Where did you get this information?'' Albano said.
While concerns have existed in the past about shield laws potentially unduly protecting sources in criminal investigations, 41 states and Washington, D.C. have a press shield law, Krockmalnic said.
'The sky has not fallen anywhere there. It will not fall here. And we know that authorities in those jurisdictions regularly and successfully prosecute crimes that are reported on by the press despite the existence of a robust shield law,' Krockmalnic said. 'But here in Massachusetts, sources provide their information at their own peril. They know that their names and information that they provide can be demanded by the government or by private litigants and must rely on the press's ability and funds to fight on their behalf to try to convince the court that we deserve protection.'
The bill defines a 'covered journalist' as 'a person who regularly and credibly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, or publishes news or information in a professional manner that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.'
'It is our intention to not overly constrain how a journalist or journalism or the act of newsgathering is defined in legislation,' Krockmalnic said. 'If you are plausibly engaged in the act of newsgathering, then the law should apply to you.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.