A lot of journalists and journalism professors, over the years, have quoted and endorsed Finley Peter Dunne’s line, “The business of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Often that’s considered a summary of the duty of journalists.

I understood the first part, but the second part always rankled me a bit – is “comfortable” a synonym for corrupt, or undeserving, or somehow malicious? Wasn’t the world full of comfortable people who didn’t deserve some afflicting from their local newspaper? Did journalists shoehorn the wrong word in there so that the wordplay would work? (Isn’t getting the meaning wrong so that the writer can use a cute phrase pretty much the definition of bad journalism?)

Either way, I mention it in light of the White House’s continuing fury at Fox News. Let’s presume that it’s a free world, and a diverse set of voices in the press is good for democracy. Let’s presume that the Bush administration had its own fights with various news organizations.

But if journalists really do buy into the concept of that Dunne quote, wouldn’t the Obama administration – or any administration – meet the definition of comfortable? When the Nobel Committee is giving Obama its most prestigious prize based on potential, is there any clearer definition of “comfortable”?

In other words, shouldn’t journalists be looking at the statements and pledges of administration officials with skepticism, and shouldn’t they put the spotlight on inconvenient stories (Van Jones, ACORN, the brewing controversy over Kevin Jennings)? Shouldn’t items like “Barack Obama Statement Expiration Date” and “Culture of Corruption” be at mainstream publications, as well?