The Administration has brought out its big guns to denounce a Senate bill that journalists very much want to have made into law. The protesters, all of whom sent letters last week to senators, were Attorney General Michael Mukasey, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The bill they object to would create what is often referred to as the federal reporters' shield law. It would make it very difficult for authorities to force a reporter to reveal confidential sources. It was passed in the House with bipartisan support and is now facing action in the Senate, where it also has both Republican and Democratic sponsors.

News organizations have been trying to get such a law enacted for years. A number of states already have versions of it, but they don't count in federal courts. The congressional bill would prevent a prosecutor or judge from forcing a reporter to reveal a source's identity except under strict conditions. The conditions include proof that the requesting party has exhausted all other ways to get the information, and cases where disclosure could prevent an imminent crime or terrorist attack.

The four Administration officials argued, among other things, that the law is not needed because journalists have been able to report freely without it for years. I think a recent case involving a former USA TODAY reporter doesn't jibe with that argument. A judge has fined her $5,000 per day -- to be paid personally, not by any media group -- until she reveals who in the government talked to her about an anthrax investigation in 2001.

Mukasey and the other officials also argue that the bill's definition of a journalist is too broad, permitting shadowy figures to pass themselves off as such. That can include "those linked to terrorists and criminals," they said.

Here I think the bill could use some clearer language, and an important co-sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., indicated some changes are possible. "I think we can make reasonable accommodations to their concerns and we're working on it," he said.

But if the Administration wants the legislation killed altogether, I hope it doesn't get its wish. Much as most journalists dislike having to quote confidential sources, those sources are sometimes the only way to get at information that is important for the public to know. Think Watergate, Abu Ghraib, legitimate whistle blowing.

Recognizing that, the congressional sponsors wisely labeled the law the "Free Flow of Information Act."  Not the "reporters' shield law."

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., one of the sponsors in the House, reminded critics that the issue "is not about protecting reporters; it's about protecting the public's right to know."

That's the platform on which the debate should proceed.