The traditional press once again finds itself at a time of intense change - albeit on a different trajectory - as the Internet robs it of readership and viewership and as the public reputation of the mainstream media slides downward. After an intervening period of relative calm on the legal front, a new string of high-profile subpoena cases has resurrected the debate over the propriety of a reporter's privilege. Subpoenas served to members of the mainstream press have gotten a great deal of attention in recent years, both among the general public and as a component of a heightened legal discussion over the need for a reporter's privilege. Gallons of ink have been spilled discussing the pros and cons of various forms of the privilege. Members of Congress have debated the need for a federal shield law for reporters, judges have questioned the propriety of recognizing a privilege rooted in the First Amendment, and academics have discussed the usefulness of protecting journalists from subpoenas. With all this discussion, however, there has not been any current, neutral empirical data on the intersection between the law and the affected community - the perceptions of newsroom leaders as to their own legal climate and as to the impact of subpoenas on the newsgathering process. Given the almost universal recognition that the media are at a new defining moment, the clear next step for scholars and legislators is to think carefully about how old legal frameworks need to be reconsidered as the traditional media revolutionize into something new or entirely disappear. One benefit to providing a reporter's privilege by legislation rather than as a matter of constitutional doctrine is that statutory protections are more easily changed to account for new circumstances and changing societal impacts.