Good reporters ask tough questions. They dig into areas that political leaders, public figures and others in power would prefer to leave unexplored. In doing so, journalists fulfill their First Amendment role as public watch dogs.

But should a reporter who talks to the "wrong" person or obtains the "wrong" information, be threatened with jail? Should judges be able to compel reporters to break promises to confidential courses? Will the flow of information slow or even stop if sources can't trust journalists to keep their word?

Those questions arose again last week when a federal judge sentenced San Francisco reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada to 18 months in prison for refusing to reveal who gave them the grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds and other athletes. The reporters are free pending appeal.

The journalists wrote a series of articles and a book based in part on leaked testimony surrounding the investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, a company accused of providing steroids for Bonds and other star athletes.

A bill pending on Congress, sponsored by Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, would block federal judges from forcing journalists to betray sources. In cases of an "imminent threat" to national security, the media's shield could be lowered and cooperation forced.

However, in most cases, including the Bonds-BALCO investigation, journalists would remain free to do their jobs, probing, prying and promising, when necessary, to protect sources.

Congress should finally approve the shield legislation, proposed by Lugar and Pence last year. It's not just about shielding journalists. More important, it's about protecting the public's right to a free flow of information.

The Indianapolis Star