The press has been called many things -- "arrogant," "irresponsible," "above the law." While these characterizations may in individual cases sometimes contain truth, American journalism remains the true guardian of our First Amendment rights. It is through out local newspapers, radio and television stations that we remain in touch with much of our world.

And it is through protection of the rights of the media to gather and process information objectively and unhindered that the press remains "free."

Recently, action by a local governing body threatened to topple the objectivity of the local press by attempting to require two local reporters to testify in regard to a criminal action brought against a local taxpayer. The Buckingham Township Board of Supervisors (namely supervisors George Whitlock and George Taylor, with member Elmer Fletcher dissenting) filed charges of disorderly conduct and disruption of a public meeting against John Green, Startlight, regarding a public meeting in Startlight on Nov. 17. When it came time to hold a preliminary hearing last Wednesday on the charges, reporters from The Wayne Independent and The River Reporter were subpoenaed by the township to act as witnesses in the case.

Both reporters appeared as ordered, but invoked the Shield Law to protect their right not to reveal sources and observations gathered as reporters in their line of work. Why? Perhaps Atty. Robert Bryan, representing Mr. Green, said it best when he objected to a motion by Buckingham solicitor Jeffrey Treat to have one of the reporters labeled "adverse." "He's stated he's neutral, not hostile," Bryan countered. "He says he's not for one side or the other."

Then why did Supervisor Whitlock and his attorney seek testimony from the reporters? "We figured you, being reporters, would be unbiased, Whitlock told the Independent reporter. There were at least 40 other people present at that meeting. None were called by the township. (Had the tables been turned, and the defense sought to subpoena a reporter from this newspaper, our reaction would have been no different.)

Why not just testify to what the reporters witnessed at the meeting, and leave it at that? Because that same reporter has to go back out there tomorrow -- to cover another meeting, another hearing, another court case. He or she must be open to receiving information from a variety of sources. And those sources must remain open to revealing information to that reporter.

A 1963 application of the Pennsylvania Shield Law, in re. Taylor (412 Pa. 32) opined, "...Important information, tips and leads will dry up and the public will often be deprived of the knowledge of dereliction of public duty, bribery, corruption, conspiracy and other crimes committed or possibly committed by public officials or by powerful individuals or organizations, unless newsmen are able to fully and completely protect the sources of their information." "Sources" has also been judged to include "documents, inanimate objects, and all sources of information" (in this case, simple observation).

That same ruling explicitly stated that appellants were "not required to produce memoranda, notes, reports and other documents... pertaining to investigations." (Both reporters, in the subpoenas delivered to them "on behalf of Buckingham Township," were directed to bring "any and all notes, tapes, etc.," concerning the meeting to court with them.

If any party to a disagreement can support his or her stand by compelling the media to be a part of that disagreement, the press will, in effect, become a wooden dummy in the hands of ventriloquist -- castrating the objectivity of a free press, and rendering it a mere "object" of influence.

This is why we invoked the Shield Act. Because "...Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."