ArcaMax

But since nobody loves the media for long, it seems, even when First Amendment rights are at stake, some critics have reasonably questioned whether some reporters have crossed the line and actually asked for trouble.

For example, Noah Rothman at the Hot Air website allows that media are "correct to challenge authority, to broadcast images that the local police do not want seen, and to serve as a check on the power of law enforcement and the military."

But he goes on to object that, "it is also clear that the press is no longer serving as objective chroniclers of the proceedings. In many ways, the media appears to believe that it is an active participant in the events in Missouri. What's more, the press appears to be relishing this role."

Relishing? Us? As media became part of the story they almost began to treat themselves as being central to it.

That's not an illegitimate complaint. Sometimes when a TV reporter, for example, decides to report live from the center of the action or close to it, he or she should not be surprised if police shove them aside or threaten arrest. Both police and the press need to work toward reducing disorder, not adding to it.

Both sides also have a role in protecting and preserving the most important underpinnings of our democratic society. News media need to be free to inform the electorate and hold public officials accountable.

And at a time when the meaning of such words as "journalist" and "objectivity" have become blurred in the age of bloggers and opinionating cable TV news anchors, we in the media have to guard our most precious commodity: credibility.

The public will help us defend press freedom as long as we show them it is worth defending.

========

E-mail Clarence Page at cpage@tribune.com.)

(c) 2014 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.