Administration doesn’t get it

We’ll tell you why we keep things secret, but we have to tell you that in secret.

Does that sound like the administration of a president who says on his website, “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government”?

In effect, Attorney General Eric Holder stomped that sentence into the ground this past week by saying he would meet with representatives of major media organizations to discuss guidelines for journalists in leak investigations. The discussion would be off-the-record.

The Associated Press, which saw the rights of journalists to an unfettered free press as afforded in the Bill of Rights trampled into the ground in a leak investigation, declined the offer to meet with Holder. So did most other major media organizations, including the New York Times and the Washington Post.

That should be a wake-up call to the president. Major media outlets have been accused, sometimes rightly so, of being soft on President Barack Obama for the past five years. The cozy relationship is getting icier over a basic freedom.

Media critics aren’t siding with the media in this divided nation. It’s easy to spot reaction on Internet sites to stories about the intrusion into the AP and its reporters’ and editors’ personal phone usage that says, in effect, that the media doesn’t react until it’s own ox is being gored. We would note that swift reaction against what Holder’s minions did to the AP came from the left and the right sides of the political spectrum.

The media isn’t the problem here. The arrogance of the administration and the liberal nanny government attitude is.

Following the rejection of the meeting by most major media outlets, the Democratic National Committee’s spokesman issued a Tweet that said the media gave up its right to complain when it turned down Holder.

Sorry, but slighting the attorney general is not an edict in the Constitution. Nor is issuing widespread phone record subpoenas against journalists, all in the name of national security as a concern, but not a specific incidence.