EDITORIAL: Editing Truth Out

Oct 25, 08:57 AM

Current Headlines: By Times Union, Albany, N.Y.

Oct. 25--If Congress needed another reason to pass a federal shield law for reporters, it has one now. It has learned firsthand that it is in the best interest of Congress to have such a law, not to mention the best interest of the American people.

The latest lesson comes in an Associated Press report that congressional testimony offered by Julie Gerberding, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was heavily edited by the White House, thereby depriving a Senate committee of a full accounting of the potential health risks posed by climate change.

The editing might never have come to light were it not for two sources who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. It is that pledge of confidentiality that is at stake in the debate over the federal shield law, where pending legislation in the House and Senate would grant reporters limited protection from being forced by prosecutors to reveal their sources. There would be exceptions in cases of national security. President Bush has signaled that he intends to veto the bill.

Any member of Congress who may have been inclined to side with Mr. Bush on the issue -- by arguing, for example, that the lack of a shield law did not prevent The Associated Press from breaking the editing story -- should think again. Sources who approach the press must rely on a reporter's willingness to keep their names confidential, even under threat of imprisonment. How many government workers, or others who see wrongdoing in their workplaces, have remained silent out of fear of reprisal by their superiors if a reporter cracks under pressure and reveals their names?

According to the AP story, Ms. Gerberding had prepared 14 pages of testimony for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the effects climate change might have on the spread of disease. But after the White House Office of Management and Budget reviewed her testimony, it was slashed from 14 pages to four. And Ms. Gerberding apparently got the message the White House was sending her, keeping her responses to questions from committee members devoid of elaboration.

It's no secret the Bush administration has scant regard for the scientific warnings that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. But to eviscerate testimony of the possible effects that warming might have on human health is going too far. Every American has a right to know that information.

Now, thanks to two sources who were willing to come forward to the press, the White House version of science can be seen for what it is -- censorship in the service of a constituency that is hostile to global-warming warnings. It also serves as a reminder of how easily government can engage in secrecy without a vigilant press to hold it accountable.

THE ISSUE: The White House heavily censors climate testimony.

THE STAKES: Congress needs to wake up to the threat posed to the public's right to know.

-----

To see more of the Times Union, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesunion.com.

Copyright (c) 2007, Times Union, Albany, N.Y.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.