Government reach or ethical breach?

First Amendment advocates, free press crusaders, outraged journalists, agitated journalism professors and social justice warriors have been making much ado about the implications of the search-and-seizure of that Kansas newspaper owner-publisher-editor's house he shares with his mother, who tragically died two days after the incident.

They decry the violation of media shield laws, the rejection of protecting information from anonymous/unnamed sources in the newsgathering process and the identification of said sources, all of which are a valuable part of an ethical journalist's method of reporting facts and truth.

But people conveniently overlook one fact that happened early on and merely adds to the compounding problems that transpired afterward.

The newspaper used a state database to access background records about a citizen they were investigating. To access those records, the newspaper needed a name and a driver's license number. The paper received an anonymous tip that included the DL number of the person they were investigating.

One without the other would not work. They needed both. Type in the DL number and you would need the name to complete the transaction.

The ethical - if not legal - challenge does/should not involve the anonymous source providing the DL number. It's the fact that a third party - in this case, someone from the newspaper - typed in the name of the person being investigated to enable the input of the DL number to work to access the records.

Boom.

Just like that, the newspaper misrepresented itself by assuming the identity of the person being investigated by typing in her name. Something so simple (yes, all the cop shows on TV demonstrate how easy it is to do) simply sours everything that follows.

Bottom line: You don't do that. And they should have known better.

Rick Dana Barlow

Schaumburg