More than half the states in the union, 32 to be exact, have shield laws that protect journalists from revealing their sources in a court of law. Washington does not.

Last year, a bill in the State Legislature proposing protection for journalists met strong approval in the House but was shot down in the Senate due to partisan politics.

This year, the bill has been reintroduced and was unanimously approved in the House at the end of February. Once again, the bill faces an uphill climb in the Senate, as some Democratic senators hope to deny the bill's supporter Attorney General Rob McKenna a victory.

There is a reason two-thirds of the country has shield laws protecting confidential sources; these laws protect both journalists and the general populace.

In order for journalists to perform the investigative duties that are part of their job description, they must on occasion ensure confidentiality to their sources that can be insiders who can deliver powerful information that allows journalists a look inside corporate or government misdeeds. Often, however, a source that speaks to a reporter is risking their job and livelihood.

By revealing a source's information to the public, many illegal or unethical activities are uncovered and, more importantly, stopped. One of the most infamous examples is, of course, the Watergate scandal.

No journalist enters into an agreement of confidentiality with a source without seriously considering whether the situation warrants the discretion. Confidentiality is not offered to just anyone; there must be a justifiable reason for withholding this information.

At The Daily, we rarely offer this privilege to sources because we do not often undertake major investigations into government or corporate fraud. However, we will offer this confidentiality if there should be potential harm to a source if we print a name, in which case we still keep source contact information on file should a problem arise.

Shield protection is routinely granted to members of the clergy, spouses of those on trial and lawyers. There is no reason not to extend this protection to journalists who are working to protect the public interest.