When does journalism go too far? I’m not talking about sensationalism. I’m talking about newspapers enforcing censorship. The claims come from the idea that some news is too much information and/or even dangerous. This is called the social responsibility theory. It doesn’t seem to be too popular a theory for today’s news organizations.

In recent news, President Bush admitted to ordering secret eavesdropping to combat the War on Terror (does anyone else think that the names for this war are weak?). The New York Times writes, that the “information had been ‘improperly provided to news organizations.’” Whether that means someone leaked the right information was leaked or incorrect, is a little ambiguous.

Bush was also quoted as saying the article compromised national security: “Our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.”’

Again, when does journalism go too far? Should news organizations reveal secrets about government intelligence missions during wartime? I always wondered whether discussing war strategies in the news was smart. Isn’t that just informing the other side?

I guess I’d lean more towards the social responsibility theory. I don’t want full censorship, but I’m all for keeping my country safe.