The above generally, but by no means always, is a good thing. Journalists such as Anderson had tremendous power and influence over the public but they had no check or balances. Their choice of words or way of coloring a report could turn a low thing into a major scandal, or make a big thing modest; and that in turn would save or destroy a person's reputation. Major journalists such as that have made plenty of mistakes, doing great harm to political reputations. (It is extremely difficult for a public figure to sue for libel.)
Writers in the journalism publiation, Columbia Journalism Review, tend to take a very priestly view of their powers, rationalizing any excesses, "well it's all in the public good", or "our record of success far outweighs our errors". Often journalists have a very "holier than thou" attitude.
Let's take a look:
At the time, that incident _appeared_ to be a big scandal, but in hindsight, it does not appear to be that big of a deal. Adams was a very effective (although abrasive) member of the Eisenhower administration. Adams was forced to resign and that was a loss to the administration and the country.
The question is "to what _standard_ of accountability"? A good columnist (watch Fox News) could take a normal satisfactory political record and make anyone look like the scum of the earth. "Accountability" is a tricky thing. I've seen local muckraters destroy politicians by presenting the facts in such a way that seriously distorted their meaning in the public's mind. For example, showing personal business investments as if they were improper, or implying normal tax deductions were fudged.
Interesting aspect. McCarthy did the same thing -- after smearing and ruining someone publicly, he would privately help them out.
Let's remember that other equally promient journalists assisted McCarthy by printing leaks from McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover that smeared and ruined people. Again, once the damage is done, it's very hard to undo.
Hoover (and other power brokers) used secret leaks to prominent journalists like Anderson (or probably even to Anderson) to control their enemies. Many congressmen were terrified that Hoover would leak something negative on them and ruin their careers; this was a reason Hoover (and others) stayed in power so long without challenge.
Is it fair and proper for a journalist to have the power as judge, jury, and executioner? To put it another way, who watches the watchers? Something to thing about.
I am not against muckraking journalists such as Anderson, I am just concerned that they'll abuse their power and have no checks and balances.
[public replies, please]