Hmm. Let's prosecute the witnesses.

Let's say you're a reporter. Someone calls you anonymously and gives you information regarding illegal shenanigans at a local business (insider trading, institutional discrimination, securities fraud, etc.). You do some due diligence investigation and determine that the allegations have merit, and you publish the story. Indictments are handed down, convictions are made, company goes under. The former CEO sues you for publishing the confidential corporate information that you received from your anonymous whistle-blower. You get your day in court, and any financial penalty and/or legal fees are covered by your paper's insurance. Everyone moves on, you've done your job in reporting the information that you've been given. Your source either remains confidential or is protected by whistle-blower laws.

Let's say you're that same reporter. An anonymous government official tips you off to illegal goings-on at a government agency by leaking classified information. You do your due diligence investigation and find that indeed, the allegations have merit, and you go public with the story. In theory you've done your job as a member of the "Free press", a concept which the founding fathers felt so strongly about they wrote it into the First Amendment to the Constitution. The theory is, a free press exists to keep the citizens of this country informed as to the actions of the government that ostensibly represents them. Instead of the matter being investigated and corrected and/or the source (if he/she has been identified) being prosecuted for leaking classified information (a risk they assumed when they leaked the information, the theory being that the information getting out is a lesser evil when compared to the illegal goings-on), you find yourself being arrested by federal agents for propogating the information that's been given to you.

Seems kind of unfair, doesn't it. But when you consider the current adminstration's attitude towards the Constitution ("Dammit, it's annoying, can we just ignore it? After all, terrorists.") it's not so surprising. Clearly the importance of a free press is far less than the administration's ability to do whatever the fuck it wants without worrying about being held accountable by the people it represents. They'd rather treat the symptom than the cause, because the cause promotes their agenda. And it makes perfect sense when you consider their assertion that anyone who gets in the way of their agenda (no matter how criminally insane that agenda might be) is a traitor.

Hmm, let's see... if you report illegal actions by the government, you're a traitor.. but the Constitution gives you the responsibility to hold the government accountable to its constituents. Tough to be a reporter these days. Even tougher when the government is the real traitor.