No doubt it will seem strange to hear professional journalists say so, but we oppose the shield law being considered by President Obama, the Senate, and the main stream media.

The first problem with a shield law is that for all the definitions proposed, sometimes a paid journalist does not practice journalism and other times someone blogging in their pajamas creates Pulitzer Prize article.

The second problem with a shield law is that it can cover up the kind of sausage-making that can be hidden in backroom politics. Here’s a useful example. Remember Democratic presidential candidate John Edward’s $400 haircut? NPR reports that, according to Politico’s Ben Smith, David Plouffe, manager of Barack Obama’s campaign, leaked the story to them. The story ought to be presented, but who leaked the story is as much a story as the story itself. In the Plame leak case, much of the real meat of the story, like State Department’s Richard Armitage being the primary source, and that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew the truth before deciding to persecute Scooter Libby, and that NBC’s Tim Russert had already spilled what he knew to the prosecutor before claiming shield protection, or that NBC’s Andrea Mitchell confessed to knowing things before she recanted.

It’s worth remembering that the useful nefarious political leak is a preferred dirty politics tool of the trade used by David Axelrod, Obama’s political advisor. In Illinois, the Chicago Tribune reports that Obama’s campaigns worked vigorously behind the scenes to fuel controversy about his political rivals.

Yet, on his first day in office, Obama signed Executive Order 13489 that sealed his own records. Obama has asserted control over his own records yet has moved to make it easier for him to slime his opposition.

A shield law that hides smarmy ethics shields not whistleblowers, but smoke-blowers.