Final answer:
Journalists have legal protections when reporting on controversial topics due to their role in public discourse and the precedent set by the New York Times v. Sullivan case, which requires public figures to prove 'actual malice' for defamation claims. The Pentagon Papers case further underscores the balance between national security and freedom of the press, granting the media rights to publish matters of public interest.
Step-by-step explanation:
Working journalists have legal protections when reporting on controversial topics due to the potential implications their work has on public discourse and democracy. Legal protections are essentially a recognition of the role journalism plays in society, especially given the Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires public figures to prove 'actual malice' to claim defamation.
This ruling acknowledges the need for a free press to report on public figures without the constant threat of litigation for unintentional errors. The extension of such protections to an amateur 'blogger' can be contentious, yet it might be argued that in an era where digital media is pervasive, anyone contributing to public debate could require some level of protection.
However, this raises questions about journalistic standards, accountability, and defamation risks. The precedent set by the Pentagon Papers case illustrates the tension between national security and freedom of the press, supporting the press's right to publish information significant to public interest.