> As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that

> As journalists, we all view this as a horrifying assault on the public’s right to know, and on our own status as brave defenders of the public good. And that is all true, for what it’s worth. The author really should have left this perspective out of the essay; it's vain and distracts from the valid larger point. If powerful people can "no comment" the Washington Post and other significant outlets because the media can no longer extract a penalty for doing so, then they only really have to worry about crossing each other. The public interest is likely to suffer as this trend continues. (edited for clarity)