Press should not print all available details

The press has the ability and authority to find out national secrets and classified information. But possessing this power does not mean the facts journalists discover always should be printed.

The media have the right to print or broadcast what they choose. They must decide what is newsworthy, what is not and determine which topics the public wants and needs to know. Balancing these tasks on a normal day is not easy – doing so in the midst of a war complicates decisions even further.

Some journalists know Vice President Dick Cheney's whereabouts, but they have not divulged the information. This discretion is crucial in protecting national security. Telling the public where Cheney is hiding would serve no purpose. If the secret were out, the government simply would relocate him. The revelation might satisfy some curious minds, but no one needs to know these details. As long as he is safe, his security should not be compromised.

But media organizations' discretion differs, as was apparent immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Some networks reported President Bush's exact locations, down to the name of the military base, when he was returning to Washington on Air Force One. These specific details could have jeopardized Bush's and the rest of the nation's safety. Knowing that he is doing everything in his power to take charge after the attacks was all the public needed to know.

Ultimately, it is the press' responsibility and power to decide what information the public needs to know. The government should not set guidelines or attempt to demand certain details be kept private.

In 1992, major U.S. news organizations signed a statement of principles on combat-related news coverage with the Clinton administration. The Bush administration is ignoring the agreement.

This is good news for the press. Such an agreement, which required journalists to abide by a set of military security ground rules, offered conditional access to military operations. Reporters could cover news openly, but only as long as they followed certain rules that would protect U.S. forces and their operations.

The press and the government have different agendas; entering into an agreement of combat coverage compromises the role of the press as a watchdog of the government. They begin to work together instead of independently.

During times of crisis, the public is more likely to back the government than to criticize it. The media serve to question policies and federal actions that people might overlook in their patriotism. This role is crucial to hold the government accountable, make sure it is representative of the public's wishes and check the consistency of its actions.

The press, for the most part, knows what to print or broadcast and what to leave out. Journalists deal with issues of discretion on a daily basis and therefore have much experience in the matter. They can decide, without governmental interference, what will appear in the next day's papers and broadcasts. And members of the press will make good, well-informed decisions, because they also do not want to see future tragedies.

In the wake of the attacks and the military action that will ensue in the coming months, journalists will continue to search for the truth and uncover confidential information. Although such details would make for good stories, the press is responsible for reporting only the facts the public must know and keeping the secrets that could hurt many for minimal gain. Not divulging these facts does not dilute the power of the press – it strengthens its power of discretion.