Watchdogs of Democracy

   Reporters can indeed be nuisances, especially when officials prefer secrecy. Like canine watchdogs, they can yip and yap at unusual doings, prompting annoyance among people who want to do their thing without being noticed. Often, however, early barking is warranted.
   Adversarial journalism, moreover, is a part of political life. This is not to say that reporters should be rude and discourteous, although some really are and others are perceived to be so.
   The important thing is that reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and members of the news media press for information on behalf of the general public.
   And yes, sometimes there is a conflict between a need to know and a right to know, or even a desire to know. Then the question becomes, who decides, the politician or the public?
   Curiosity is often not reason enough. There is sometimes a thin line between news and gossip, and editors consider that dilemma every day.
   Currently, editors are making decisions like this almost hourly, weighing consequences to national security against citizens' right to know, their need to know what political leaders are up to and whether officials are really behaving in a rational manner,  or whether their actions, comments and decisions fall within the bounds of legality.
   Thanks to investigative reporters at major news outlets, assisted by conscientious insiders privy to important information, the world is learning details of the many times officials in Washington break the rules of acceptable, legal and constitutional behavior.
   In the coming week, Congress will hear testimony from those involved in recent controversies connected to the White House, and their effects on American democracy.
   Were it not for vigilant journalism, these issues -- some of which could lead to impeachment of the president and jail time for others -- may not have become public knowledge.
   There is currently no federal shield law protecting journalists who refuse to divulge confidential sources, and several reporters have gone to jail rather than name their confidants.
   Some in government, including the current White House, insist that a leak is a bigger crime than the information detailing potentially illegal behavior by officials. Nonetheless, reporters persist in their First Amendment duty to inform the public of news that is important.
   If not for such reports recently, the attorney general may not have named a special counsel to dig deeper into the issues currently entangling the administration in a web of inappropriate and possibly illegal and impeachable behavior.
   But what if the Office of Special Counsel loses its funding for the coming fiscal year?
   The administration is to present its budget for the fiscal year beginning this fall, and it will be interesting to discover how much funding for the investigators is provided.
   In addition, a bill being considered by the Senate (S.582), would authorize expenses for the Office of Special Counsel as well as extend new legal protections for federal employees known as whistleblowers who report abuse, fraud and waste related to government activities.
   Suppose the president vetoes this bill?
   What then?