ens — and that's all journalists are — have a duty to cooperate with officials in the investigation of a crime.

Secondly, without a shield law, a journalist can still choose to keep his source confidential as long as he is willing to pay the price of possibly going to jail. I believe this is a very worthwhile restraint on the use by journalists of so-called anonymous sources.

I confess that I'm opposed to this practice. It's been abused and is detrimental to good journalism. Sources should be used to direct the reporter to the right record or the right question to ask. It should be a rare, rare occasion when a journalist has to quote an anonymous source in a story.

The problems are many. First of all, the reader cannot properly evaluate information attributed to an anonymous source. As is said in court, the people have a right to assess the testimony of a witness based on the person's relationship to the defendant or his personal interest in the outcome. This applies to readers. If they don't know who said something, they can't judge whether it's legitimate or just personal bias. This raises doubts about the credibility of the information and about the journalist. It's been my experience that people who won't talk on the record are cowards or propagandists who wish to use the journalist to spread some manure.

There are three things all journalists should strenuously oppose: people who want to be anonymous, secrecy, and so-called off-the-record or not-for-attribution briefings. Propaganda sessions would be a better name for them. It's part of the all-too-cozy relationship too many Washington journalists have developed with the government and politicians.

Whenever some guy came to me and wanted to talk anonymously about somebody having allegedly committed a crime, I told the person upfront that he had two choices. He should talk to the police or state's attorney. The second choice was to provide a sworn statement given in the presence of witnesses, the newspaper's attorney and a notary public. Otherwise, get lost, as I was not about to allow some guy to use me to libel a political enemy unless he was willing to come openly into court and prove his charges.

There are a lot of envious and disgruntled people in politics and government, and they would like to have a cover to say nasty things about their political or personal enemies while avoiding any responsibility. A reporter and editor who allow people to do that betray the reader.

The First Amendment was not written for the benefit of journalists. It was written for the American people — all of them. I believe it is vitally important to maintain the plain, Joe Citizen status of the journalist. We have no special privileges under the law. Anywhere we can go, any questions we can ask, any records we can see, the average guy can do likewise.

If some journalists wish to think of themselves as celebrities, that's their foolish business, but their illusions about their special status should never, under any circumstances, be endorsed by the government. Journalism does not need a shield law, and journalists don't deserve one.

It's a totally bad idea.