Journalism and the Free Society

In a free society, everybody is allowed everything. But, of course, we are not all good nor charitable. Hence the need for a watchdog that restricts social freedoms by taking some to itself. The three branches of government have been the traditional watchdogs, but increasingly, especially in this information age, the media is taking up the role too. So there is bound to be a problem, as there is with the police, as to what the ideal freedom-restriction ratio is: always a moot point how much freedom is allowed the watchdog. Only, in the case of journalists, the freedom they take away from people is the freedom to prosecute wrongdoers-by-law, offering them anonymity for information. Judgement comes into play and sometimes you use small fry to catch big fish. In this context, this judgement on the journalists who refused to divulge their sources in the matter of the leak of a CIA agent's identity is bound to raise some hackles. While the law has to be upheld, as indicated in the NYT Chairman's statement, there ought to be some kind of federal shield legislation to let the Fourth Estate function independently. It is all in the grey and Gopalan's interviews with Veerappan were exasperating agreed, but I feel we ought to sacrifice some rights to those who keep us informed(I am not talking of the papparazzi of course). And just when Deep Throat came into the open to remind people of the golden days of journalism(although that was by the way), Judith Miller's stand in court assures us its not just all papparazzi values in journalism now.