Hanging in the balance at the end of the Washington Legislature's session and some rather muddled objections, the approval of a news reporter's shield law is iffy.

Why does a reporter from newspapers, television, radio and a host of other publications including Internet, need such a protection law? The answer is simple. Reporters are not public employees, nor are they police officers or prosecutors. They want the law to protect them when they give their word to people that what they say may end up being in print, but that the person's identity will remain confidential.

There are provisions in the proposed law, SHB 2452, that permit courts in certain instances to compel disclosure of facts, but only on the order of a court. Also, there is no protection for media to withhold "physical evidence of a crime."

Such laws have produced major news stories that have led to revelations such as Enron and Watergate. Most people do not have the economic security to give up their future employment so that some miscarriage of justice can be revealed to the public. Without such protection, reporters will not be able to get those in the know in government or in private business, to tell the real truth of nefarious activities.

Sen. Erik Poulsen, D-West Seattle, opposes the bill, not for any specific objection to its terms, but ostensibly because the bill was introduced at the behest of Republican Atty. Gen. Rob McKenna and not a Democrat. Aw, c'mon senator, not all ideas come from Democrats.

As the Legislature works through the final week of this even-year short session, we urge Poulsen and the rest of the Legislature to pass this important measure to protect the people's right to know the facts.