This was not always the case. There was a time when the press took seriously the work of keeping the public informed. This included pointing out the errors people made and the crimes they committed, but not necessarily exploring all their personal weaknesses, physical, mental or moral.

During the time when I grew up, the president in office was known to have extra-marital relationships and a major physical disability, but the press rarely spoke either of his infidelity or his infirmity. Photographers avoided taking pictures of him getting up from his wheelchair or standing with his crutches.

The presumption was that what the president said and did was fair game for reporting and criticism but his private life was his own business. It was, I think, a good distinction to make.

In the years since, however, the media and much of the public seem to have lost that sense of civility. The quest for flaws in our politicians extends well beyond their conduct in office and into every facet of their personal lives. This is the case with other celebrities as well. One whole segment of the media is devoted to photographing movie stars, royalty and other famous persons in embarrassing or compromising situations.

Even the law has condoned the behavior. Some decades ago, the courts ruled that persons in public office or in the public eye became “public figures" and had less protection against libel because of that status. The presumption apparently was that if one chooses to be famous, he or she automatically abdicates any right to privacy.

The justification for what otherwise might be considered old-fashioned snooping now is encapsulated in that over-worked phrase “the public's right to know." It is cited so frequently that some in the media apparently believe it is one of the rights guaranteed by the U.S> Constitution.

It is not. The closest that document comes to addressing the question is the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from limiting freedom of speech or press. Numerous court cases have upheld the right to speak and publish, but a large number also have upheld the proposition that the speaker and publisher have the responsibility to tell the truth. Unfortunately, there is no parallel doctrine requiring that the report also be justified by any standard of decency or fairness to the individual.

As a result, we now have capable people who do not want to put themselves in the public eye because they do not want to expose themselves or their families to such unpitying scrutiny. In our present state of hypocrisy, we seem able to forgive the youthful indiscretions of a rap star of questionable talent, but not those of an otherwise ideally qualified candidate for public office.

Having spent my life in the news business, I am a strong defender of the right to print, but I also am a severe critic of the misuse of that right. The First amendment is not a license to pry. Nor does uncovering a juicy bit of gossip give the media the moral right to disclose it.

I always have been impressed by the rules of the legal profession in this respect. If you have ever sat through a trial or watched one on TV, you will have noticed that lawyers lay great store by the rules of evidence. To be introduced, statements must not only be genuine and supportable by evidence, but must be germane to the case. Imagine some of today's news stories being put to that test.

Now, the media are pressing for a “shield law" to protect news persons from having to reveal their sources. I have mixed feelings about that proposal. I agree that reporters who accept information on the promise that they will not tell where it came from should keep that promise even if there are serious consequences. I am not sure, however, that I want all reporters given the right to refuse to substantiate the material they write on the grounds of protecting sources.

This is cache, read story here