Forty-nine states -- including North Carolina -- have "shield laws" protecting the relationship between journalists and their sources. The federal government needs one too.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved such a law, known as the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009. That body passed an identical bill last year, with an overwhelming bipartisan majority voting "aye," but it stalled in the Senate. Here's hoping it will have smoother sailing this time around, with a different presidential administration in office.

Shield laws are so named because they make it possible for reporters in most situations to shield the identities of confidential sources who come forth to provide information vital to reportage exposing governmental corruption and wrongdoing. Without assurances that their identities won't be trumpeted about, many whistle-blowers would remain silent for fear of retribution.

Such protections, of course, cannot be absolute. Under the House-passed bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), federal judges would have the power to compel journalists to reveal the identity of their sources under certain conditions -- specifically, to prevent death, bodily harm or commission of a terrorist act. Also, leakers of classified data could not claim shelter if such a release caused "significant and articulable harm to national security."

The bill now before the Senate is similar enough to the House version that reconciling the two should be easy. And in welcome contrast to the Bush administration's circle-the-wagons attitude toward such legislation, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has indicated in hearings that he thinks "a carefully crafted law to shield the press in the way you have described is appropriate." As a senator, President Obama supported shield laws in principle.

Journalists can't claim blanket immunity from judicial inquiry into their actions. But they can't do their jobs if they can't offer assurances of anonymity to skittish sources in routine situations. The House bill seems to strike an adequate balance, and it deserves Senate passage.