The state’s post-election political season is already under way and things will slowly be coming to a boil over the next six to eight weeks.

Many legislators have already pre-filed some bills, as the State Capital Highlights column pointed out in late-November.

With this activity comes threats from all sides that will affect our industry. We’re hoping, through the Legislative Action Committee, to cut some of these off at the pass. We’re also hoping to take, as was initiated last year, a more pro-active approach to dealing with bill sponsors and their intentions.

While there will be some measures proposed we obviously will support, there is one that needs the backing of the full weight of our newspapers — the shield bill. We’re not sure it’s going to be presented this year. It has made it up to the final cut a couple of sessions in a row, only to fall short to the time constraints and the moods of our opponents.

Since the bulk of Texas Press Association’s members are smaller dailies, semiweeklies and weeklies, the shield bill may not appear on the surface to be of much interest. But rest assured, it is of extreme importance to all of us.

In nearly 40 years in the business, I’ve never had the occasion to need a shield law. As I expressed myself in a shield bill meeting a couple

I spend time worrying about who is going to take out the trash before the next garbage run, how I’m going to pay the next press bill, whether there’s enough money in the bank for payroll, what I can do to cut back on this bill or that bill, and so on.

No, I honestly can say a shield bill has not ranked among the priority items in my day-to-day life of running a newspaper.

But if it ever does rear its ugly head, I want to be sure that shield law is there.

But, even if it is there for us to use, we will have situations where it may come back to bite us.

It will never be an all-encompassing protection.

Back in early 2005, the shield issue was top of mind with me, and I remember a conversation I had with several folks. We imagined situations when we might want to protect a source in order to get a story. But we also worried about what would happen if we offered City Employee X anonymity in one story, but we didn’t offer City Employee Y the same anonymity. Or if we offered an ordinary citizen anonymity in an important story, then she tells her husband we did it, and he tells a friend, and so on. Our credibility is always at stake.

We will be putting ourselves in a position of having to make decisions we may not want.

But I believe if the shield bill is used properly and not over-extensively, it will serve a good purpose.

That’s why it’s important that this be among the priority items we address in the coming weeks.

But this is a not a done deal among our own membership. While there is general overall support for the measure, there are those among us who are opposed to it.

We will be discussing this issue in the weeks to come and we once again encourage your input and your participation.