I'd be interested to learn the explanations behind the argument that a broad shield law might somehow restrict the government's ability to enforce our laws. I'm willing to consider that argument, but just saying that it limits law enforcement is NOT an argument.

It IS true, and easy to explain, that the government increasingly exerts more control over our press, and therefore over journalists who work for conventional print, radio, and TV news sources, indirectly through corporate lobbying, lobbying that does not come only from media corporations. For example, it benefits ExxonMobil if it can influence, through providing advertising revenue as well as in other ways, large city newspaper and TV coverage of the oil/energy industry. To think that industry giants do NOT influence media coverage of them, given the amount of money it spends on advertising and lobbying, is simply naive.

So it's very easy to explain how and why RESTRICTING shield laws might benefit industry and the government's ability to exert control over our citizens (not the same thing as enforcing laws), keep corporate profits high, and prevent further social legislation intended to benefit citizens at the expense of corporate profits, especially now that we are beginning to see how grassroots citizen activist movements can come about and gain significant momentum as a direct result of the inexpensive, rapid communication venue provided by the internet.