Newspaper column: Nevada court stands up for Fourth Estate

Normally those in the press don’t seek any privilege not accorded any other citizen, but by the very nature of the job — showing up at fires and car crashes, attending public meetings, poking into nooks and crannies of government and society, asking questions and quoting people — there needs to be a means to help keep the press independent.

That is where the Nevada press shield law comes in. It prohibits dragging members of the Fourth Estate in for a third degree interrogation. Otherwise, there would be little incentive for people to talk to reporters, because that reporter could be forced to testify against them, as recounted in this week’s newspaper column, available online at the The Ely Times and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Dana Gentry

This past week the Nevada Supreme Court once again upheld the state shield law that states: “No reporter … may be required to disclose any published or unpublished information obtained or prepared by such person in such person’s professional …”

The case involved Las Vegas television producer Dana Gentry, whose reporting had proven embarrassing to the son of former Gov. Kenny Guinn, Jeffrey Guinn, the majority owner of two financial services companies bearing the name of Aspen. Guinn and his companies had been sued by investors who alleged breach of statutory, contractual and fiduciary duties.

Aspen countersued, claiming, among other things, defamation. Aspen accused Gentry and the investors of generating embarrassing news stories and that the investors gave Gentry gifts.

The opinion by Justice Michael Douglas relied heavily on a case from 2000 that greatly strengthened the state shield law by striking down previous rulings from the court. In that case attorneys had subpoenaed Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Glenn Puit to ask him about an interview with a state trooper following a fatal automobile accident. Puit invoked his shield law privilege.

Justice Myron Leavitt’s opinion then stated: “Nevada’s news shield statute serves an important public interest and provides absolute protection against compelled disclosure to ensure that through the press, the public is able to make informed political, social and economic decisions.”

This doesn’t put the press above the law. Both Leavitt and Douglas said the shield can be broached, but only under serious constitutional circumstances.

(By the way, the term Fourth Estate was coined by Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, who observed that in Parliament there were three “estates” — the House of Lords, the House of Commons and the nobility and clergy. Thomas Carlyle wrote in 1840, “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact … Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority.” Sometimes the press even lives up to that role.)

Read the entire column at the Ely or Elko site.

8 comments on “Newspaper column: Nevada court stands up for Fourth Estate

  1. Steve says:

    Jon Ralston, believe it or not, deserves a thumbs up in this. As Dana Gentry reported in City Life, among his own reasons for leaving the Las Vegas Sun he was also doing so in support of her.

    Say what you like about him, in my book that gives Jon Ralston some up votes.

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    The flip side is news writing that openly/blatantly spins opinions favoring individuals and causes rather than publishing neutral observations allowing readers to form their own opinions. Should I have to wonder whether an article favoring some government policy came from a politician’s press agent, or pressure from some politician. Free press, I think not.

  3. Steve says:

    I remember when news was separate from opinion and editorial. Then they had a coup.

  4. Vernon Clayson says:

    I’ve gone by skeptical, I’m in full cynical regarding the news and politics.

  5. Cynical is OK understandable, but not as useful.

    >

  6. 4TH ST8 says:

    […] state Supreme Court has twice upheld the shield law as serving an important function for the […]

  7. […] Myron Leavitt opined in a case in 2000 in which a plaintiff tried to force a Las Vegas newspaper reporter to reveal his sources: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s