An op-ed in today’s Washington Post, co-authored by the deans of five journalism schools, sheds light on what mainstream media mavens mean when they use the phrase “public interest”:

In the case of the stories about financial data, the government’s main concern seemed to be that the hitherto cooperative banks might stop cooperating if the Times disclosed the existence of their financial tracking system. So far, that apparently has not happened.

Don’t the deans of the nation’s major journalism schools read the New York Times?:

The European Parliament demanded Thursday that European institutions in Brussels and European governments disclose how much they knew about a secret American program to tap into international banking data.
In a resolution that reflected rising concern among Europeans about their countries’ cooperation in the United States’ effort to curb terrorism, the Parliament voted 302 to 219, with 22 abstentions, to demand that the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Union’s 25 member states “explain fully the extent to which they were aware of the secret agreement” between Swift, an international banking consortium, and the United States government.

Not to mention the investigation launched by the Belgian prime minister into the activities of Swift, which is headquartered there. We don’t know yet if Belgian or EU authorities will stop Swift from cooperating with the U.S. government, but we do know why that’s a real possibility.

But let’s say the NYT was right to publish the Swift story. Are there any leaks of classified information that can’t be justified by appeals to the “public interest”? The deans say yes:

For many Americans, however, the possibility of damage to terrorist surveillance should have been sufficient justification for the Times to remain silent. Why, they ask, should the press take such a chance?
There are situations in which that chance should not be taken. For instance, there was no justification for columnist Robert D. Novak to have unmasked Valerie Plame as a covert CIA officer.

I can see how the Plame leak is not the hill you want to die on if you’re defending the media’s right to publish classified information. But “no justification”? Her husband was lying to journalists just about every time he talked to them – particularly about his wife’s role in sending him to Niger. Apparently there is no “public interest” to be served by setting the record straight.

So what does count as a matter of “public interest”?

In the aftermath of 9/11, a new climate of caution was a sensible response to a sophisticated terrorist foe. But Bush’s reaction — declaring a “war on terror” and claiming the Constitution grants almost limitless powers to the president in a time of war — is excessive.

The deans answer that any information that can be used to support this hyperbolic thesis — an outrageous overstatement of the Bush administration’s actual position — is a matter of “public interest.” Those who disagree do not count as the public, and their interests in wanting anti-terror programs to remain secret and effective are not respected by those who control the culture of journalism in this country.