Am I dangerous? I'd like to think I am. I think I'm pretty edgy.
I mean, I'm a compulsive jaywalker - what a rebel! Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly risqu+â-¬, I cross at the Scramble Light when the "don't cross" light is on - you go Matt Erler!
I even listen to the Sex Pistols.
All in all, I'm one tough customer.
President George W. Bush thinks I'm dangerous, too.
As a member of the press, I took particular pride in the New York Times' decision to run an article exposing yet another domestic spying program. The White House was predictable in its outrage.
Whether you think the domestic spying program - which keeps getting more expansive every day - is wrong is irrelevant. The real issue appears to be whether the press is overstepping its bounds.
This is an important issue. For journalists, our role is to report the news and do so unflinchingly and without mercy. And part of our job as editors is to determine whether these stories could do harm to the country.
It is a balance that editors must carefully consider. In the New York Times case, the responsibility to report the news won.
I doubt there is a journalist in the country who doesn't feel a sense of pride over the Times story. At the same time, there isn't an editor in the country who didn't question whether revealing the details of the spying program could be harmful to the nation. Its a double-edged sword - one that prompts plenty of political grandstanding, as well as meaningless resolutions.
Speaking of meaningless, on Thursday the House of Representatives took action. By a vote of 227-183 and along a largely party-line divison, the Republican-controlled House passed a resolution saying that the New York Times story - although The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times also ran stories - endangered the lives of Americans.
The resolution is non-binding and amounts to little more than a petty slap in the face.
The resolution charges that the 9/11 Commission, along with the Bush administration, asked the New York Times to refrain from running the story.
The story ran.
Rejected.
This isn't the first time the Times has been at odds with the Bush Administration over national security. According to CNN.com, in December of 2005, the Times published an article on the administration's spy program. In this case, the administration had convinced the Times to hold off for a year while the newspaper did additional research.
Time will tell how this plays out. The battle between those who argue over national security issues and civil liberties is not a new one. Compared to Bush, past presidents responded much more drastically.
But Bush's policies warrant strict criticism and need to be explored fully. The American people deserve to know what is going on. At the same time, journalists need to keep in mind that sometimes our readers are better served by us holding stories than by us printing them.
But are journalists dangerous? Only time will tell whether the domestic spying story will do any harm. Until then, you can find me around campus giving the proverbial middle finger to the Scramble Light - you know, being dangerous.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
