Actually a number of journalists ripped Obama over that incident.

Bloomberg's Jonathan Alter: don’t like it one bit. I just, this and the AP story disturb me, and I think my reaction is not just as a result of being a journalist. I don’t think it’s the way to operate in a democratic society.

I would actually like to see him (Obama) apologize to journalists who have had their work and their privacy, and their…you know, compromised. You know, the administration says well, we’re going after the leakers, and in order to get them, and get those who are jeopardizing our national security, we have to go after the reporters, too. And this is what all administrations say when it comes to national security. But this administration has been especially aggressive on it, and I know they don’t want to intervene in any of these cases, and I know that a lot of people don’t think that the President should ever apologize for anything. That was Mitt Romney’s view. But I just take a different view. I think if you cross certain lines the way this has, you should own up to it and say it wasn’t the right thing to do. I mean, I don’t think it’s an impeachable offense. You know, I don’t think it’s going to lead to the biggest scandal since Watergate. But I do think it was the wrong way to go about things, and it’s disturbing.

I thought, and I wrote, that (Holder's) appearance last week was, in front of the press, was, I think I used the word pathetic. And one of the things that I didn’t like about it especially was that he said that every avenue had been exhausted before the AP reporters were snooped on. But people who know the Justice Department and know their rules, which are quite narrow, suggest that there were a number of other things that could have been and should have been done first. Now it should be said that there is no indication that any of that broke the law. But it did, because the Patriot Act and other laws give the Justice Department wide discretion to do this kind of thing. But it did, according to some accounts of lawyers with familiarity with the Justice Department, it did violate the Justice Department’s own rules. And so when Eric Holder said that he didn’t, that all other avenues had been exhausted, that was not accurate.

New York Times Michael Shear: I mean, look, as a reporter, I think it’s absolutely chilling. And I think we all operate in this city, especially, under the assumption that there are, there are certain freedoms that are guaranteed to us that aren’t guaranteed in, say, other countries, and that we, and part of that is an understanding of the recognition of the kinds of things that we in the press do, and the kinds of environments that we operate in. And what was described in that incident with Mr. Rosen is not at all what we are used, and I can just speak for myself personally, having done this for 25 years, I mean, I don’t ever think that that’s the kind of, you know, that my personal email is going to be searched, and that other things are going to be monitored. I mean, it’s just not the kind of environment that we expect to be operating in, and it’s really chilling.

You know, one of the things we do all the time is try to cut through convenient excuses. Now I don’t know, I’m not, I don’t cover the Justice Department full time. I cover the White House. But clearly, one of the things that has been frustrating to the press over the last few days, and specifically about the AP story, is that, you know, is this sense that, you know, as we’re pressing for answers, what we’re coming up against is well, that’s not, I’m not the one you have to ask, ask somebody else. And that’s been, you know, you go to the White House, and they say talk to Justice, you go to Justice, they say Holder can’t talk. And so I think that is one of the frustrating things for reporters trying to get to the bottom of these stories, is the kind of, that picture of the guy with the arms twisted, and both hands pointing in opposite directions.

CNN's Jake Tapper: In the politics lead, a Fox News reporter is caught in the middle of what's being sarcastically called "a conspiracy to commit journalism." Not only did the Justice Department label James Rosen a co-conspirator for soliciting information from a State Department contractor for a story, but Fox News is now reporting that the Department of Justice even seized the phone records of Rosen's parents and of at least five other phone lines associated with Fox News. Earlier this week The Washington Post reported that the FBI sought and received a warrant to search Rosen's e-mail back in 2010 to find the source of a leak. Keep in mind there's no allegation that James Rosen bribed, threatened, coerced anyone to get the information, which is what journalists do. We try to get information, especially information that the government doesn't want us to share with you.

In an opinion piece, the New York Times, which is of course very supportive of President Obama, the editorial page, accused the Obama administration of going overboard to find and muzzle insiders in the government, saying, quote, "Obama administration officials often talk about the balance between protecting secrets and protecting the constitutional rights of a free press. Accusing a reporter of being a co-conspirator, on top of other zealous and secretive investigations, shows a heavy tilt toward secrecy and insufficient concern about a free press," unquote.

Now, I'm a journalist. Obviously I have a bias here. But even if you side with this President over those of us in the media who challenge him in his administration, it is important to remember the precedent these actions set going forward. Perhaps when it's not your guy in the White House.