http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575337002190061586.html Rejoinder by a liberal observer:Tucker Carlson will keep releasing, misrepresenting Journolist e-mails - War Room - Salon.com After reading these articles and others and the comments thereto (curiously the traditional media is strangely silent on this story ), it demonstrates that the profound issues here are largely being lost in the partisan static. We should remember (for those of us old enough to have learned it in government schools before revisionist history took over) that the Constitution affords special "by name" protection in the First Amendment to the "press" for a reason. It is clear that the founders realized the critical importance of the "press" to the effective functioning of the government they created. It is also clear that from their own experience, the "press" was assumed to be independent and "principled" if not always polite in that it would provide critically needed information to the people to thus enable and empower the people to control their government. Regrettably, since President Wilson first institutionalized the idea of "managing" the press in terms of co-opting it to the ends of government (ironically those in the "press" who were instrumental in this were later the "heroes" of Goebbels for his propaganda efforts for the Nazis), there has been an erosion of the independence of the "press." This in turn left it vulnerable to the ideologues within the profession to align this willingness to compromise generally applicable journalistic ethics with the prevailing ideology that has been shown in numerous studies and surveys to be distinctly left of center. As a consequence, and especially when combined with notions of Alinsky and others that the "ends justify the means" and that the "greater good" (as deemed so by the elite using the power) trumps any other countervailing consideration, principle or value. Thus, the list serv communications are really important not in the specifics of the gossip but rather where they disclose a conscious and cynical willingness (and in some cases intent) to act on the posters' political biases rather than to properly do their jobs as journalists in spite of them by following stories wherever they led and not suppressing coverage of those that did not fit their ideological template. The press should take a very sober look at this since the special place the press enjoys in our Constitutional system is in jeopardy now due to their abrogation and perversion of their duty as journalists that is the quid pro quo for such special protection.