Among the five freedoms detailed in the First Amendment, freedom of the press probably gave the Founding Fathers the biggest case of heartburn. Despite the soaring rhetoric about the necessity of having a free press, there is ample evidence through their writings that the Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the gap between the principle and the practices of the press.

Few, if any, would argue that the journalism of the late 1700s and early 1800s was a golden age. Newspapers of the day routinely carried vicious and often scurrilous attacks on the prominent figures of the day. Thomas Jefferson, who was such an eloquent proponent of a free press during the drafting of the Constitution, found the free press in practice so utterly contemptible that he bitterly complained about it during his second inaugural address:

"During the course of (my) administration (as president), and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are to be deeply regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have themselves been left to find their punishment in the public indignation."

So deeply did Jefferson and the others believe in the need for a free press to keep government honest that, despite their own personal sufferings from the abuses of the press, and probably with some deep personal reservations, they enshrined it as essential to the protection and success of the new democracy.

Even in 1823, long after he had left the presidency and in the twilight of his life, Jefferson wrote to Lafayette: "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Things haven't changed much since that time. The press still can be, at times, raucous, abrasive, arrogant, ignorant and abusive. But for more than 200 years, the press has also served the nation well, exposing corruption and injustice, informing, enlightening and even inspiring the public. Despite its shortcomings, it is the healthy ingredient in the recipe of our democracy.

The notion of putting restraints on the press is not a new one and has been attempted often throughout history. Most of these attempts haven't been successful, mainly because public opinion has proved to be the most effective restraint, just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. But there is a new threat to the principle of a free press in this country, and it has nothing to do with government intrusion.

The threat is economics, and it is affecting all news organizations, not just newspapers. As revenues decline and economic pressures grow, news organizations are being forced to cut costs, specifically cutting nonrevenue-generating parts of their operations. In most newsrooms, investigative reporting is the first to go.

Investigative reporting is time-consuming, expensive and doesn't always produce results. It is the most important function of any newsroom, but when times are tough, it is the most expendable. When the bean counters come calling, it is very difficult to defend investigative reporting because the return on investment is seldom justifiable to them.

The last thing needed is anything that gives the bean counters any more reason to demand cuts in investigative journalism.

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday gave a boost to news organizations in their efforts to preserve investigative reporting by approving legislation that would create a federal shield law. The bill, which now moves to the full House, would protect reporters from being forced by prosecutors to reveal their sources. There are carefully worded exemptions in the legislation that address concerns about national-security issues as well as some criminal and civil cases. In passing a shield law, the federal government would join 33 states, including California, and the District of Columbia, in protecting reporters from being forced to reveal confidential sources.

The Judiciary Committee's approval is only the first step. The Senate Judiciary Committee must approve a similar bill, and then the two houses must reconcile the bills. There will be opposition, particularly from the Bush administration, which claims it could harm national security.

The greater threat to our national security is an encumbered press that no longer provides its watchdog role. Once again, we would do well to heed Jefferson's advice, "Considering (the) great importance to the public liberty (of the freedom of the press), and the difficulty of submitting it to very precise rules, the laws have thought it less mischievous to give greater scope to its freedom than to the restraint of it."

— Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.