Potential books from all ends -- stops at bookstores, mentions in movies, cites online, book reviews, and simply passing them in the library. And, they flow hydra-like, for instance, find one book/author, and there is likely to be other books by said author that might be of interest. Thus, I saw a book in the store, asked someone to try to find it for me, and she found another book by said author -- How Free Can The Press Be? by Randall P. Bezanson (I saw his follow-up, a similarly titled book on religion). The pattern is to take a few cases and discuss the issues arising from them, including some excerpts of the actual oral arguments with some commentary (a good strategy).
Mixed bag. One problem is that I don't think he properly addressed the contours of the issues, leaving out some important details along the way. For instance, take the Pentagon Papers. The idea here is that the press can be restrained as long as there is a grave immediate threat (not emphasized, there also was the problem of the executive acting on his own authority). The book took for granted this matter, also raising various possible examples, like threat to diplomatic efforts that would affect lives. But, should the press really be responsible for the possibility that release of compelling information will lead to loss of life? Let's say, to take an extreme, if we release the fact the President murdered x person, it will lead to failure of peace efforts, and the continuation of a war. Is the press required not to print it?
IOW, freedom can lead to serious consequences -- beyond a reasonable doubt might result in the freedom of someone more likely than not guilty of a serious crime. Likewise, yes, it's ideal if the media had a responsibility to include all sides. Some support a "Fairness Doctrine" (remarkably not mentioned in the book) to promote this end. But, it is problematic to force newspapers to include a "right to respond" to criticism. See, Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo. But, and the chapter on the case failed to note the point (ridiculing the thinness of the opinion), the opinion in that case addressed the concerns. Likewise, the concurring opinions supported some press responsibility (e.g., possibility of an obligation to retract libelous material) in some areas, Justice White particularly noting as much. Why exactly was this not covered?
I know books can only do so much, but it is not unfair to say such things, since it is one thing not to dwell on a matter, it is quite another to omit important material. It was particularly annoying to read RB damning Tornillo without noting that, yes, the justices did realize media monopoly etc. has led to problems. The question was not the problem, but the solutions. Still, the book did provide an important service in examining important issues, making some challenging arguments along the way. For instance, are special benefits to the press in fact counterproductive since it makes the press responsible to the government? Is the press responsible not to the truth per se (somewhat unknowable), but the attempt to reasonably try to so determine (e.g., reckless prong of "actual malice")? And, what exactly is "public concern," or rather, should more things be kept private? How?
Thus, though I felt the book poorly reasoned at times, it was a worthy read.