As reporters set aside their traditional role as fact seekers and veer into advocacy, they find themselves on a slippery journalistic slope.

If you've read my New York Times bestseller 'Stonewalled', you know that I'm a fan of an intellectual exercise I call the Substitution Game. It involves comparing how the press treats similar events or people depending on how the reporter or news organization feels about the issue or the newsmaker.

Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath.

Many Americans are eagerly watching the devolution of traditional news with relish because they agree with the prevailing narratives, whether based on true facts or imagined fiction.

Many news organizations have come to resemble the fact-starved blogs they once took pains to remain separate from.

Formerly well-respected news organizations and experienced national journalists are making the sorts of mistakes that aren't tolerated in journalism schools. When their mistakes are corrected at all, it's with little seeming regret.

Yes, there's still much good journalism to be found, if you know where to look. Yet, ask reporters who've been around a while, and many will tell you that a lot of good journalism is being left unpublished.

Many will debate the substance of the public impeachment testimony against President Trump. To me, each of the Democrats' witnesses of the past two weeks appeared to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe they know what's best.

My court fight is clearly an uphill battle. The Department of Justice has unlimited tax dollars to spend obstructing and fighting my case, which is now in its fourth year.

But the government spying on me was not done under the authority of a court warrant. That's why my case is even more dangerous than the others.