“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

Two events happened last week that, when weighed against one another, have to make one question whether or not we really have a free press. While the government has not yet passed a law of which I am aware impeding the right of the press to print and broadcast anything that is not pornographic and does not endanger national security, if we didn’t know it before last week, it is now abundantly clear our press is motivated less by the pursuit of truth than it is by the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Truth was long ago replaced by sensationalism, market share and corporate greed as the motivation which drives even our most professional reporters. In turn, this reflects the dumbing down of a population more attuned to titillation than to substance. One of the results, of course, is a less informed electorate that decides how to vote based more on rumor mongering and half truths than on a substantive understanding of the issues.

The first of the two events to which I refer was the publication of a new book, The Way of the World, by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind. In his book, Suskind, who has a history of working closely with reliable intelligence sources, charges the Bush administration with directing the CIA to forge a letter implicating Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks in order to help justify the invasion of Iraq. Referring to the letter in question, Suskind says, “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq - thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s office had been pressing the CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

According to Suskind, multiple sources at the CIA saw the directive written on Whitehouse stationary and told him then-CIA Director George Tenet said, “You may not like this, but here’s our next mission.” Of course, the Bush administration has denied this and Tenet has succumbed to a senior moment by denying it ever happened. But if it did, then the Bush administration is undeniably guilty of breaking U.S. law. The Title 50 of the U.S. Legal Code - War and National Defense, Chapter 15 - National Security, Subchapter 3 - Accountability For Intelligence Activities states, “No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

The second event of the past week was the revelation of the John Edwards affair. Of this event, no elaboration is necessary because anyone not dwelling in a cave on the top of Mount Washington has heard all the sordid details.

And that is precisely my point.

To be sure, Edwards transgressed, and in doing so he damaged his wife, his family, his political party and pretty much destroyed any political future he might have had remaining.

But why is Edwards’ transgression, one which in reality has practicality no impact on most Americans, given so much more air time, so much more newsprint and so much more general hoopla than the revelation that the President of the United States may well have broken the law and in doing caused the loss of over 4,000 American lives, cost the American taxpayers over $500 billion dollars, wrecked the U.S. economy and engendered a general disenfranchisement of the U.S. reputation on the World stage?

The only ones who can sit in judgment of Edwards are his wife, his children and his God. The Bush administration, on the other hand, deserves to be judged by all of the American people. A case can be made under International Law that it should also be judged by the rest of the World.

There simply is no comparison in the importance of these two stories.

It’s true that Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution allows the press to make the decision to cover the Edwards affair and ignore the covert action charges. But shouldn’t a free press have the responsibility to be a fair press? Doesn’t it bear the responsibility to ensure it provides comprehensive, objective reporting of all newsworthy events? Don’t We, the People, deserve a press that is dedicated to reporting the news, not hyping it?

In the end, where is the legacy of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley?