Leonard Pitts' Recent Column.

In his column "Timid Media tiptoe back into the 1050s" Leonard Pitts writes about the dilemma journalists have in deciding whether or not to print all they know if doing so might be harmful to the public interests. He says, in part: ". . .you could say that the media outlet that refuses to cooperate with government in a time of crisis sacrifices national security on the altar of journalistic principle. . . [and] the flip side of that argument. . .is that the editor or producer who too readily surrenders jounalistic prepogatives fails in his or her primary mission: to inform the public without fear or favor. Some . . . wonder if that's not precisely what has begun to happen."

Mr. Pitss didn't ask for a vote, but here's mine anyway. I vote for journalistic principle every time. To assume that most Americans can not decide between what the media report and what the government claims is insulting. If it's true that we can't make our own judgements about what to believe, the game is lost already.

If, from time to time the media end up with egg-on-face disease, I trust them to admit it a lot sooner than the government. How long has it taken for the Bush administration to admit that Saddam's attempt to buy uranium in Nigeria was a fraud? I'm not even sure they've really admitted it yet. How can you tell with so much buck passing going on? Answer? It's up to the media to report what they know, especially if it differs from what government says.

Mr. Pitts writes a great column, which I read in the New Orleans Times Picayune.