The second segments of the article discuss access of the press to then Vice President Dick Cheney and the ability of traditional media to constrict dissenting voices. Clearly the ethics of restricting the New Your Times from enough access to the Administration, despite this papers' renowned anti-Republican stance, is unethical. In keeping with the precepts of the Constitution and the ethics of democracy as defined as ideals by the United States, limiting access of dissenting voices just drives up the distrust of the public and the media. All of this tends to make entire branches of the government more insular, and in so doing they become less likely to concentrate on their service to other departments and citizens. It is unethical to limit access of dissenting...

Authenticity, transparency and trust are supposed to make the life of a politician, certainly a Vice President, continuously accountable. The Vice President is there to serve the people, not for the press and people to serve them. By in effect denying access, even if personally uncomfortable and even with traditional media they may not agree with, the Vice President is denying democracy what it needs to move forward. Truth and transparency and the fuel of democracy, to deny that through being highly selective about access is to limit its potential to keep a country's politicians focused on serving rather than using their positions to serve themselves.