With bombs exploding in Britain, it seems almost churlish to gaze too long at one's own navel. But it is usually during a crisis that the value of a free press becomes manifest. It's during these times we realize just how much society stands to lose if press freedoms continue to erode.

Two days ago, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential White House source for a story she never wrote about former CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame.

Because Miller's source committed a felony by outing Plame as a spy, Judge Hogan and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald felt compelled to play hardball with the newspaper veteran.

Judge Hogan made sure that Miller and the media culture she represents understand that journalists aren't in a position to ignore the wishes of a grand jury, no matter how unjust or inappropriate they feel their requests may be. Does leaning on a reporter to give up a source threaten journalistic enterprise and the ability to get information to the public in a timely and accurate manner? Well, that's too damn bad.

A solemn oath to protect a source is admirable, but American judges have little patience for what they consider the arcane and arbitrary virtue of journalists. The elaborate negotiations between reporters and their informants sound like gibberish to special prosecutors who don't mind hauling reluctant witnesses before skeptical judges.

By sending Miller to jail for honoring her personal commitment to a news source, Judge Hogan reiterated a mantra that has come into vogue lately: Journalists aren't above the law. This growing hostility to this profession is occurring in the absence of a comprehensive federal shield law.

Widespread hatred of the press couldn't have come at a worse time for American democracy. Politicians have rarely been more brazen in their contempt for constitutional checks and balances. The Iraq war is such a smorgasbord of incompetence and corruption that reporters of an earlier era would be happily feasting on its carcass of duplicity and bad faith like gorged vampires by now.

While Miller's drama plays itself out in Washington, D.C., journalists here in the Keystone State are singing the blues over a series of rulings that threaten our ability to gather and report the news without fear or favor.

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association continues to issue updates about the legal jeopardy that comes with telling the truth about the state's shameful menagerie of sticky-fingered politicians and litigious public servants with slick lawyers.

Last month, in a breathtaking disregard for the unambiguous meaning of Pennsylvania's Shield Law, Lackawanna County Judge Robert A. Mazzoni ruled that whatever we thought the law meant, it doesn't guarantee the protection of a confidential source. Say what?

"The public interest is better served by maintaining and enforcing the secret and confidential operation of the grand jury system," Mazzoni said. Never mind the very large elephant in the judge's chamber that lists zero exceptions to the state's Shield Law and zero precedents for handing over a reporter's source to a Pennsylvania grand jury.

The ruling is under appeal, but Pennsylvania newspapers are quietly preparing for a long slog that may take them to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that Pittsburgh City Council members' taxpayer subsidized cell phone bills may be part of the public record, but itemized numbers on the bill aren't the public's business and can be redacted. To call this a strange and contradictory ruling would be putting it mildly. It flies in the face of any reasonable definition of "public record." I suppose we can see the envelope the cell phone bills of elected officials are delivered in, but that's about it.

Despite legal precedent to the contrary, the Commonwealth Court ruled against the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in its fight against Councilman Len Bodak over full access to cell phone bills. The Trib is appealing the ruling.

While there are occasional media victories -- Pennsylvania newspapers aren't liable for publishing the names of minor defendants accused of rape if the information is truthful and lawfully obtained -- the courts have cast a jaded and suspicious gaze in the direction of the media.

In the end, it isn't just "liberal" or "conservative" newspapers that are losing constitutional ground in court -- it's the public's right to know. Every case of blocked access to public records is a betrayal of our system. Information coerced from reporters with threats of jail translates to more power in the hands of an arrogant and resurgent state. Liberals and conservatives should be soul mates when it comes to defending the freedom of the press.

The jailing of Judy Miller and recent court decisions in this state are a harbinger of difficult days to come. No less an authority on a properly functioning democracy than Thomas Jefferson once said, "I'd rather have newspapers and no government than government and no newspapers."

As much as Jefferson disliked the press, he knew a good thing when he saw it.