Watch Dogs Better Than Lap Dogs I have not read the entire article, but I'm sure there will be some people posting about it across the web. I don't have Times Select, so my access is limited. Pulitzer Prize winning author Nicholas D. Kristoff is not a happy camper Not in the least. This is what I've read thus far:

When I was covering the war in Iraq, we reporters would sometimes tune to Fox News and watch, mystified, as it purported to describe how Iraqis loved Americans. Such coverage (backed by delusional Journal editorials baffling to anyone who was actually in Iraq) misled conservatives about Iraq from the beginning. In retrospect, the real victims of Fox News weren't the liberals it attacked but the conservatives who believed it.

Historically, we in the press have done more damage to our nation by withholding secret information than by publishing it. One example was this newspaper's withholding details of the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion. President Kennedy himself suggested that the U.S. would have been better served if The Times had published the full story and derailed the invasion.

Then there were the C.I.A. abuses that journalists kept mum about until they spilled over and prompted the Church Committee investigation in the 1970's. And there are secrets we should have found, but didn't: in the run-up to the Iraq war, the press — particularly this newspaper — was too credulous about claims that Iraq possessed large amounts of W.M.D.

In each of these cases, we were too compliant. We failed in our watchdog role, and we failed our country.

When you read just this snippet though, it is powerful. Editor and Publisher has a little more.

"So be very wary of Mr. Bush's effort to tame the press. Watchdogs can be mean, dumb and obnoxious, but it would be even more dangerous to trade them in for lap dogs. " Elsewhere in his column, Kristof admitted that he "might have made that decision differently" on the bank records story. Unlike the Times' earlier "NSA spying" revelations, the program in this case is probably "sensible" and not illegal. But Kristof added that "so far there is no evidence that the banking story harmed national security, and I'm sure that editors of this newspaper, The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal weighed their responsibilities seriously, for they have repeatedly held back information when necessary. In contrast, the press-bashers have much less credibility."

This entire story is important. If Congress were to reign in on reporters, it would change the whole dynamic of not only freedom of the press, but more so than that, it would handcuff the average citizen's capacity to obtain information regarding the running of our government. It has been proven time and time again that no nation is free if the press is censored. We do not need to make journalists criminals for reporting a story. Just saying.  ¶ 7/04/2006 03:32:00 PM