Longroad - If anyone came to me - whether it was the president of the United States or an unknown person with no resources or power - to tell me that something I might report would do damage to them, I would attentively listen to his or her concerns and weigh the matter on the merits. I can think of hypothetical cases in which I would tell that person "sorry, but no." And I can think of hypothetical cases in which I would tell that person, "you know, you're right, the harm done by this would create a punishment that doesn't fit the crime."

But as you might imagine, anyone that approaches this journalist seeking that matters of great public importance be hidden from public view had better have the facts and reason on the side of his or her argument. And they'd better not try to apply pressure, whether in the form of bribe or blackmail, or, if they are a person of privilege and means, they sure as hell better not try to wave that power in my face. Those that have come to me over the years taking that kind of stance have walked away empty handed and sometimes worse off for it.

The truth is, every journalist makes a thousand decisions every day of what to put in and what to leave out of a story. It's just not humanly possible to publish every single piece of data assembled in the reporting. The stance by some journalists - "we published that because it was there" - is morally hollow. The challenge is to set priorities, to deduce what matters and what does not, and always provide a listening ear to those that have genuine concerns about the consequences of reporting sometimes on innocent parties.

But if someone called me up today saying, "Hi Al, this is Barack," I'd only wonder which of my pals was playing a prank on me. And since only three people in the world have my home phone number, it wouldn't take me long to figure out who was the joker and plot an appropriate prank in response.