Author: William H. Freivogel

The press doesn’t cover nuance very well, especially when it is covering itself – or when a reporter is more of an advocate than an impartial observer. The recent NSA stories and those about leaks of top-secret information are good examples. Both are important stories raising serious questions about the right balance between liberty and security. But the failure to provide nuanced, balanced information has left Americans with a distorted idea of what is at stake.

Journalism groups, such as the Society of Professional Journalists, are calling upon reporters and editors to contact members of Congress and to write editorials in favor of a national shield law to allow reporters to protect confidential sources. But legal experts on both sides of the issue agree that a national shield law probably would not have helped the press in the big national security and criminal cases that have gained public attention, such as the recent subpoena of the phone records of about 100 AP journalists and the investigation of Fox’s James Rosen. The AP investigation began after a story gave away the existence of a double agent tracking al-Qaida’s leading bomb-maker and the Rosen investigation followed his report indicating that U.S. intelligence had a source within North Korea’s leadership.

The press has been breathless in its coverage of the three “scandals” that plague the first months of President Obama’s second term. It has been especially hyperbolic in covering the issue on which it has a direct interest: subpoenas of reporters. Americans are told that the scandals are another Watergate, that Obama is Nixonian, that Obama will be forced to appoint a special counsel, that the president’s entire second term could be destroyed by the IRS, Benghazi and press subpoenas episodes. It is hardly noticed that there is no evidence of criminality or presidential involvement in any of the alleged misdeeds.