Michael Kinsley catches the press in another double standard: Journalists object to Bush’s “signing statements” in which he formally declares his constitutional interpretation of a bill as it becomes law; yet they insist on following their interpretation of the First Amendment when it comes to protecting sources, even though the courts have consistently ruled that they are wrong:

Bottom line: It is not necessarily an outrage for the president to run the government according to his own interpretation of the Constitution. And it is certainly not an outrage for the president to simply state his view and then do nothing about it. Legitimate outrage comes when the president acts in flagrant violation of the Constitution, defending his actions unconvincingly, disingenuously, or not at all. And Bush has offered plenty of grist for this mill in his assertion of the right to kidnap people off the streets, keep them locked up for years without a trial or even a public acknowledgment of their existence, to torture them, and so on. But nailing him simply for stating his views on a constitutional issue, without even asking whether those views are right or wrong, is wrong.
It’s wrong especially when contrasted with another current fever running through the nation’s editorial pages: the ongoing issue of leaks and anonymous sources. Many in the media believe that the Constitution contains a “reporter’s privilege” to protect the identity of sources in circumstances, like a criminal trial, in which citizens ordinarily can be compelled to produce information or go to jail. The Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled and ruled again that there is no such privilege. And it certainly is not obvious that the First Amendment, which seems to be about the right to speak, actually protects a right not to speak. Yet many in the media not only believe that it does. They believe passionately that it is not merely OK but profoundly noble to follow their own interpretation and ignore the Supreme Court’s.
Why must the president obey constitutional interpretations he disagrees with if journalists don’t have to? Upholding the Constitution is actually part of his job description. It is not part of theirs.

I don’t agree with the examples Kinsley gives of Bush acting in flagrant violation of the Constitution (he might have had me if he’d thrown in “signing McCain-Feingold”), but other than that he’s right on. He could have added that it’s not just the First Amendment that journalists think they have the last word in interpreting. They also think they have the right to declassify national security programs when they aren’t convinced that these programs should remain secret.