Snowden and Manning are no different than Mark Felt (Watergate) and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers). Snowden and Manning, through their work, had access to the documents they divulged. They did not hack systems; they had proper security clearances that allowed them access to the material they collected -- just as did Felt and Ellsberg. Snowden and Manning should be protected by the First Amendment.

(Granted, Manning's error is that he went through an intermediary -- Wikileaks -- rather than delivering the documents to an entity known to be protected by First Amendment rights, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, etc. I personally believe Wikileaks should be protected under the First, however, I can also understand where there is controversy since they predominantly disclose raw information, rather than analyze and report as a traditional media entity would.)

So why do we label Felt and Ellsberg 'whistleblowers' and Snowden and Manning 'traitors'? Because both the media and political landscapes have changed drastically in 40-plus years. Media entities are corporate; their news divisions can cause trouble on Capitol Hill, impacting the bottom line of the conglomerate as a whole. Taking a stance to defend Snowden or Manning could end up coming back to haunt a media corporation when they look to pursue legislation that could benefit stockholders.

There is also the post-9/11 mentality, that civil rights be damned in the name of national security. And yes, the media helps perpetuate that for the same reason described above. Although, it is funny (and hypocritical) when word gets out that the government has hacked the computers of reporters to obtain information on sources. Only then does the journalism community damn near riot because their constitutional rights have been violated.

As someone who has studied media on an academic level (two degrees -- journalism and mass communication) and worked in the media industry for nearly two decades, I can tell you the state of journalism is in complete disarray. In nearly all cases, watching television news is no more valuable in providing a person with quality information than watching reality television. Most newspapers are better off used as fish wrap or a birdcage liner. Those who still attempt to practice real journalism are drowned out by corporate media or eventually cast off as pariahs. There are still journalists who stil believe in the trade and produce quality content, but they are becoming so much harder to find.

The fourth estate? A well-informed electorate? Ha.

Journalism is dead. Long live journalism?