Via Romenesko, journalism prof Jeffrey McCall writes that the New York Times’ decision to publish details about the Swift terrorism-finance tracking program has alienated erstwhile supporters of a national shield law for journalists:

The New York Times’ publication of the Bush administration’s secret program to monitor international terrorist banking transactions could have an unintended side effect. It could lead to the collapse of congressional efforts to create a federal shield law for reporters. Shield laws are designed to protect journalists from being forced by the government to disclose confidential sources. Such confidential sources were used in reporting the financial surveillance story. President Bush called the revelation “disgraceful.” Times executive editor Bill Keller said the story was in “the public interest.” Either way, this incident is sure to be Exhibit A when the proposed shield legislation is argued in Congress. […] In an election year, it will be difficult for most congressmen to support shield legislation. The public perception is that such a law would further embolden the press to use confidential sources. The public is angry at The Times for publishing the financial surveillance story — a result that likely wasn’t considered sufficiently by The Times and now diminishes aspects for shield law legislation. The Times’ editor defended the decision by saying basically that this story was no big deal and terrorists already knew their finances were being monitored. If running the story, however, ultimately dooms shield legislation, the journalistic community should ask The Times if that particular story was worth costing reporters shield protection for future stories of greater “public interest” significance.

If the NYT’s decision to expose this anti-terrorism program hurts the chances of a national shield law, that might be its only positive consequence.

UPDATE: I explained why I don’t support a national shield law in this article for NRO.