Not surprisingly, Time Magazine has come under fire by journalists for its decision to turn over Matthew Coopers' notes in the Valerie Plame investigation. Bottom line: Reporters, watch your own back, Time won't do it for you.

After the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, [Time Editor- in-Chief Norman] Pearlstine says he concluded that TIME Inc. had an obligation to follow the law and obey the ruling. "An organization that prides itself on pointing its finger at people shouldn't be breaking the law itself," he said.

So the question is, should there be a federal shield law to protect reporters?

In the future, the best hope for journalists may be a federal shield law, now in Congress, which would let reporters keep sources confidential under any circumstances. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, while 18 additional states have similar protections. A federal law has been proposed by Senator Richard Lugar and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who have signed up dozens of co-sponsors

Update: Here's an argument against a federal shield law.