A New York Times reporter sits in jail because she wouldn’t reveal a confidential source. Big deal, right? She’s just a reporter, and reporters are not sympathetic figures. What’s more important to many people is whom she talked to and whether that person should be brought up on charges for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent.

In the Valerie Plame case, the act of leaking information is the story, and that’s why it’s not the best case study for why reporters need a federal shield law. Most of the time the information leaked is the story, and until the public understands that, politicians won’t have a difficult time scuttling or watering down proposed legislation that would provide protections for reporters and sources when government secrets are revealed.

A couple of famous cases help illustrate the point. Mark Felt, who had access to information about the Watergate break-in, leaked it to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. The ensuing expose was about all of the president’s men who were involved in a cover-up; it was not about who leaked the information.

Daniel Ellsberg, who had access to classified information about the Vietnam War, leaked it to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan. The ensuing Pentagon Papers expose wasn’t about the leak; it was about the government covering up its own assessment of how poorly that war was going.

Woodward and Carl Bernstein have said that unraveling the Watergate mystery would be much more difficult in today’s climate because government leaders are more aggressive in pursuing leaks. The Felts and Ellsbergs of today are far more reticent because they now know that reporters will be jailed if they don’t reveal their sources. They also know that some media outlets will cave in to that possibility. That’s where the jailing of Judith Miller fits in and why the public should care.

There’s always been a need for a federal shield law, but it’s much greater today because the pendulum has swung back toward government secrecy. The Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony recently on such a bill, but judging from the questions it would appear as if senators are determined to add so many exceptions that it would be worthless.

The U.S. Justice Department has stated that a shield law would be bad public policy because it would hinder the war on terror. But such laws exist in 31 states and they aren’t undermining homeland security. Besides, the bill includes national security and life-and-death exceptions.

The drive to kill the bill isn’t about national security; it’s about a government that is trying to preserve secrecy and hide its actions from the public.