A fundamental reason why the framers of the American Constitution provided for freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights was their conviction that only a press independent of the government could provide the people with the necessary information on which to make their own judgements of public issues which, in a democratic society, would permit them ultimately to shape government policy. The drafters of the Bill of Rights were firmly convinced that an "official" press would tend simply to parrot the line of the administration in power.
It is possible to go further, and to argue that even those in government need an independent press to provide them with a range of information and views on which to found their policy judgements. As this report is being written, the confirmation hearings on President Bush's nomination of Robert Gates to head the Central Intelligence Agency are focusing, in significant part, on the question of why the CIA has "missed" such important recent developments as Saddam Hussein's aggressive intentions against Kuwait and the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. Gates himself has been accused of "slanting" intelligence information so as to support a particular policy line. More generally, an implication of this debate is that the CIA, an agency of the Executive Branch of government, has tended to tell its boss the President what he and his chief advisors wanted to hear, rather than providing them with independent intelligence and analysis. If policy makers cannot rely on their subordinates to give them reliable information, then they, too, must depend in large measure on an independent press.
Yet even an independent press is an effective source of information for public and policy makers only if that press is able and willing to dig beneath the surface of any given story or issue, to find and report non obvious (and, perhaps, unwelcome) information. If the press either foll...