Publicly Correct Has Gone Too Far

The argument brought forth by the unnamed author of "Secret governments or a free press?"Editorial.USA Today 22 June 2006 brings to the reader's attention the controversy that now embroils our public. The author suggests that now in our 'politically correct' society we have gone overboard and are drowning from our 'right to know' at the expense of our country's safety and security.

If reporters are unable to report the news without fear of retribution, how far will they go to sell a story? The author suggests that the Founding Fathers had to deal with this very same issue, but even so, gave protection under the First Amendment to reporters two hundred years ago. This act says much of their wisdom. Reporters must report, but where do we draw the line between freedom of the press and national security?

In recent years, it has become apparent that the new trend in our society is to "bare all". Public apologies such as "I'm sorry I..." fill the screens of our televisions and front pages of newspapers. Reality shows expose personal business and relationships in front of live audiences. Are we that sensitive? We shackle our own reporters with threats and imprisonment for not divulging their sources in this country. For a nation that claims to be the "leader of the world", why do we lag behind several European countries and even the Orient? The author sites several examples of the advantage of 'secrecy' about sources, among which are: in 1995 reporters exposed and published news about unethical practices in a California fertility clinic , the Watergate scandal in the 70's, and the misconduct of military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison .

While the author does support the cause of reporters keeping 'secrets' he does bring up opposing views of the necessity of responsibility with reporting. Use of the analogy of turning 'watch dogs into lap dogs' becomes very visual. Reporters should not be eating out of the hands of top government officials.

Doctors and Lawyers are protected under the 'confidentiality' laws, why not reporters? They should be protected by the very same laws if they are to be impartial.

The founding fathers struggled with the reality of freedom of the press, attacks on the integrity of government officials, unethical reporting, and yet still elected to protect forever the right to speak, print, or draw what is on our minds. We must weigh the possibility of unpopular opinions, editorials, and sometimes, slander in order to enable the freedom to which we have become accustomed. We as a nation need to catch up with our brothers across the oceans.

Must we be so sensitive to allow this current full frontal exposure to "tell all" at the expense of our safety, security, and national secrets? We must write to our legislators, congressional representatives, and local government officials to relay our support of limitations of exposure of sources.