Submitted by Laura Harrison McBride, Feb 7, 2007 10:29

I applaud the New York Times for refusing to serve up its writer as a feast for greedy corporations seeking to have their meal served by the courts. If law enforcement believes Mr. Berenson engaged in illegal activities (theft, receiving stolen goods, or whatnot) to obtain his information, then their remedy is to seek a warrant to search for those items, not to invite him to serve up the secrets of the Fourth Estate for their convenience.

If, as seems more likely, Mr. Berenson received information that the possessor legally held, then there is no cause of action. For a judge to invite Mr. Berenson to testify is, in any case, a perversion of the relationship between journalists, sources and the courts. But what else is new? With more journalists in jail for refusing to reveal sources--and thus ultimately drying up same--it seems that journalist-protective laws are more necessary than ever. After all, this nation has, by and large, created a class of uber-citizens by declaring police officers the only citizens whose murder automatically results in the death penalty for those convicted. It seems we have gone the other way regarding journalists, making them fair game for the very corporate miscreants they are morally charged with bringing to public attention.

I had never joined any sort of journalism organization in 30 years as staff writer or editor and freelancer, until now. I have joined two, with a third in process. All of the organizations are concerned with protecting journalists, a task I never thought would need to be undertaken in a free society. Obviously, one or more of the concepts in the previous sentence is erroneous.

While the New York Times has occasionally slipped in its vigilance regarding its hiring, that seems a small thing compared to the major issue, especially now, of press freedom. Their stand is admirable, and gives at least a glimmer of hope to those of us who work as journalists.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.