KEEPING REPORTERS SAFE: David Ignatius raises some important questions about the safety of journalists during the war on terror. It seems the U.S. government was aware of a threat against journalists in Pakistan, but may have failed to alert media organizations:

The rumor is even more specific: The al Qaeda operatives reportedly discussed luring their quarry into a trap with the promise of an interview about terrorism. They planned to videotape the journalist's interrogation and eventual murder -- and then make this gruesome videotape available to the media.

We all know what happened to Daniel Pearl. Ignatius says its a tough call that would involve a compromise of American journalism's values, but the safety of journalists is paramount:

Journalists prize their distance from government, and no American editor would accept the kind of close, confidential briefing arrangements that are typical between the British government and the press there. American newspapers want to be free to publish information their readers need to know, even if the government objects. Part of that deal, inevitably, is that the government won't share everything it knows with the press. But the murder of Danny Pearl and the deaths of eight journalists covering the war in Afghanistan have made the news business think again about its ground rules. Serious news organizations remain committed to covering even the riskiest stories, but they are also working harder to keep their correspondents as safe as possible. What would we do, as editors and government officials, if we knew someone was in danger? In the end, the "professional" answer matters less than the human one: We would try to protect that person's life.