Page 141 - Freedom in the world_Neat

of source confidentiality. However, in response to objections—some from lawmakers
concerned about national security—this proposal was amended. The resulting “Free Flow
of Information Act,” a bipartisan measure introduced in the Senate in May 2006, offers no
protection to reporters’ nonconfidential notes, e-mails, drafts, and interviews. For
confidential sources, it specifies that “public interest in the information provided (as
determined by a judge) is critical to the protection the source will receive.”31 In other
words, prosecutors or private lawyers must convince a judge that the harm caused by a
leak outweighs the value of making the information public.
The proposed law therefore allocates considerable power to federal judges. Although it is
not as strong as some journalists and press freedom organizations would like, it offers
greater protection and clarity than the status quo. At the same time, some advocates of
press freedom have raised questions as to whether the legislation might eventually lead to
the licensing of journalists as a means of determining qualifications for coverage under the
law. The bill continues to enjoy considerable bipartisan support, but it has so far made
little progress.

Domestic impediments to the coverage of sensitive topics. In addition to heightened
controls over access to information and threats against journalists who publish classified
information, the media’s physical ability to cover certain sensitive stories has been limited
in the past five years, affecting both foreign and American journalists.
Initial coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 was sharply critical of
the Bush administration’s performance and spoke of widespread crime, looting, and
mayhem. In response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—the
governmental agency responsible for dealing with the disaster—worked to restrict
coverage. Camera crews and photographers were instructed to refrain from capturing
images of dead bodies, and some journalists said they were prevented from interviewing
Katrina victims who had been relocated to government trailers unless a FEMA official was
present.32 Some local law enforcement authorities were also reported to have harassed
journalists, particularly those who were reporting on police abuse of criminal suspects.
Such harassment included the confiscation of tapes and media equipment, verbal threats,
and physical intimidation.33
Foreign journalists seeking to cover the United States also face new restrictions in the
post-9/11 environment. Foreign correspondents have always been excluded from the
government’s Visa Waiver Program (under which visitors from 27 countries deemed to be
“friendly” can enter the United States without a visa for less than 90 days), and are
required to have a special visa to cover news stories in the United States. However,
immigration officials routinely ignored these rules until March 2003, when without warning
they began to apply them zealously. A number of foreign journalists were stopped for visa
violations at U.S. borders, refused entry, and forcibly deported to their home countries,
which included Australia, Austria, Denmark, France, and the United Kingdom, among
others. Many were handcuffed, bodily searched, kept in holdover cells or jails overnight,
and prevented from making telephone calls.34
In July 2004, a number of press freedom groups criticized the heightened restrictions,
noting that 13 journalists had been detained and deported in the previous 18-month
period.35 Partly in response, Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced a bill
that would allow journalists from the 27 “friendly” countries to enter the United States
without a visa for up to 90 days.36

Page 141 of 168