Newspaper and broadcast editors press committee for statutory shield law to protect sources

Representatives of newspaper publishers, TV newsrooms and press‑freedom organizations urged the Joint Committee to enact a statutory "shield law" protecting journalists from compelled disclosure of confidential sources and unpublished information. Dan Krockmalnick (Boston Globe Media) and Fred Rutberg (New England Newspapers) told the committee that the absence of a settled statutory standard forces newsrooms into expensive litigation and chills public‑interest reporting. Rutberg described an investigative case that required the paper to spend “$16,000” to fight a subpoena in a Massachusetts civil matter and said smaller newsrooms cannot absorb similar costs. Newsroom leaders and national organizations argued the shield law would not provide impunity or a blanket exception: rather, it would create a predictable, statutory standard and reduce divergent judicial outcomes. Walter Robinson (Boston Globe) and Karen Anderson (MSNBC) described historical examples of reporters jailed or nearly jailed for protecting sources, and advocacy groups such as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the New England First Amendment Coalition urged the committee to favorably report bills H.1738 / S.1253. Legal counsel explained the practical problems: when protection rests only in judge‑made common law, decisions vary by court and can produce inconsistent, costly results. Jon Albano explained that statutory clarity would avoid situations where litigation costs alone cause disclosure or chilling of reporting. Committee members asked about draft language and insisted on balancing public‑safety needs and grand‑jury or criminal law exceptions; advocates said drafts already incorporate such safeguards. Chairs invited continued collaboration on statutory language and requested follow‑up written material from publishers and legal groups. No vote was taken at the hearing.