Congress is considering a bill that would protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources. If approved, it would be a long-awaited step to strengthening press freedom.

The U.S. House vote of 398-21 on the "Free Flow of Information Act" last month was important in that it was the first time in 30 years and more than 100 attempts that such a bill even made it through the House. The federal protection is important since it keeps journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources.

However, the protection does not grant absolute privilege to reporters. It does not, for example, apply to cases involving criminal investigations (or prosecution) of leaks involving classified documents that could harm national security, unless a judge decides that the importance of the information outweighs the harm. The U.S. Senate has a similar version in the works.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai'i, was the only Democrat to vote against the bill, arguing that Congress should give no special protections to the press just as it should not abridge its freedom.

Abercrombie found himself on the side of 20 Republicans and President Bush, who has vowed to veto the measure because it could "severely frustrate — and in some cases completely eviscerate" the federal government's attempts to investigate threats to national security, including acts of terrorism.

What is being debated in Congress applies to federal courts, but there is a need for similar protection in state courts. Hawai'i is one of only 17 states that has no shield law, but thankfully, two legislators in the state House are drafting local versions of the bill. It's early in the process, but it is gratifying to know that state Reps. Blake Oshiro, D-33rd ('Aiea, Halawa Valley, 'Aiea Heights), and Gene Ward, R-17th (Kalama Valley, Queen's Gate, Hawai'i Kai), are taking a bipartisan approach to this issue.

One bill seeks to protect current or former newspaper, television and radio reporters, or those working for another periodical or press association, from disclosing published or unpublished information before a court, legislative body or state or county agency. The other bill also protects similarly described journalists in having to disclose the source of published or unpublished information but does not offer protection if the information is thought to have been gathered through criminal means.

At The Advertiser, we do not take the issue of confidential sources lightly because many people call with an ax to grind, and to protect them requires serious discussion.

We discourage the use of confidential sources and see them as a last resort to get information. The sources need to have firsthand knowledge of what they are alleging, and they need to know that their identities may be revealed to a senior editor. In the rare cases we do grant anonymity, we try to be clear about how the source could be in a position to know the information by describing them as fully as possible. We also provide an explanation as to why they cannot be named.

Many crucial stories would never get written without the use of unnamed sources, and reporters have gone to jail to protect the identities of those who have risked their jobs and security to make sure the public knows the truth.

"For the past 40 years, courts have struggled with the issue of reporter's privilege," said Jeff Portnoy, The Advertiser's media law attorney. "Without a clear privilege, government wrongdoing like Watergate, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the story of conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and others would likely have not come forward for fear of retribution against those who tipped off reporters. Threatening to imprison reporters and editors, or imposing massive fines, only serves to limit the public's right to know."

Some will debate who should be afforded this protection. The Senate bill defines a journalist as someone who makes money at gathering the news, while the House version has a similar definition of a journalist disseminating news and information to the public "for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain."

Our local bills offer protection to "professional journalists" employed (or who used to work for) newspapers, magazines, news agencies, press associations, wire services and radio or television stations, but do not address those who may not get paid for gathering information, such as bloggers or student journalists.

I don't know whether the definition of a local journalist will be expanded to bloggers or others, but legislators should make the definition as clear as possible rather than leaving it up to the courts' interpretation.

Mark Platte is senior vice president/editor of The Honolulu Advertiser. Reach him at mplatte@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8080.