The relationship between the press and government has always been a problematic one - and that is absolutely as it should be. So when the news media call on government officials for help, well, that makes us all squirm.

But the Free Flow of Information Act - the name given to a federal shield law for reporters - means exactly what it says. This isn’t about protecting just the news media, but about protecting sources and, therefore, the public’s right to information.

This week the Obama administration, media organizations and members of the Senate who have taken a leading role in crafting a reporters’ shield law have finally reached a compromise on a bill that while protecting reporters and their sources also will provide for an override in cases of national security.

Although frankly we can’t imagine the set of circumstances in which a legitimate member of the media would jeopardize national security as part of some deal to protect a source, the administration apparently could. And so under the compromise the shield would not apply in cases involving classified information where disclosure of a source might prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism.

In other cases involving non-classified information a federal judge would weigh the public’s right to know against national security claims.

The law, of course, applies only to federal courts, but surely could provide a model for similar - and long overdue - protections for journalists and their sources here in Massachusetts.