In America, our free press now considers themselves free to mold American political thought.

In the past, they spoke of a "watchdog" duty of the press - sort of a noble watcher at the political gate, exposing political corruption to the public readership. Ideally, the press must present information on corruption, and also present both sides of controversial ideas: this commitment presupposes an intelligent public. A press which functions in this way shows respect to the power of the people to make intelligent decisions based upon complete information.

But somewhere along the way, in the past few decades, the press has gone far beyond the watchdog function. With enormous arrogance, many in the press have decided to present only that information which will contribute to a specific notion of political reality amongst its readership. They do this with an unabashed assumption that they can still function as responsible members of the press and yet behave in this fashion. Our free press has in effect become the thought police.

Listen to journalist pundits on news channels. Their political pronouncements are preceded with such nonsensical statements as "The American People want...", "The American People think that...", "The American People expect...". Honestly, how do they feel they have the right to make such sweeping statements about the American Peoples' current state of mind? Polls? Please!

For some time I have found this arrogance merely annoying. But now, after some thought, it occurs to me that it is also terribly dangerous to the notion of free flow of information in a free society. Our fast-paced day-to-day schedules long ago led us to depend upon the press to give us the information we need to make informed decisions about our government, and domestic and world political climate. But now, if the press fails to keep up its end of the bargain - if it feeds us what it wants us to know - has it become in fact a liability as well as a necessity?

Think of what is necessarily happening in the mind of a biased journalist. He is assuming that he is somehow better informed than is your average Joe. Is this reasonable? Certainly much of the public is as educated or more educated than the typical journalist. Perhaps she believes that because she sets in on press briefings and functions close to the daily workings of government, she is better able to judge political reality. But I wonder if standing outside the press corps and away from the turmoil of government, living amongst the common folk, might better enable one to maintain a clear view.

The problem becomes the difficulty the average citizen encounters when trying to find information which lies outside the current press-sanctioned sentiments. When most of the press is biased toward a specific agenda, information to the contrary gets buried in the obscure dusty corners of the national flow of information. Finding such information often takes work - how many of the members of the public have the time or even the know-how to do such research?

There is nothing at all noble in forcing your political leanings upon a trusting public. We need to demand that our press clean up its act. Editorializing belongs on the editorial page, not on the front page. Political pundits, when using phrases such as "Americans think that..." need to be called on it. Members of the press need to be reminded that their job isn't to talk about their own opinions, unless they specifically label a statement as editorial opinion. The job of a responsible journalist is to uncover as much information as possible, and pass it along to the public.

Perhaps they need to be reminded again and again, until they remember why a free press exists.