Some of the biggest stories of the last decade have been the US government's pursuit of whisteblowers Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Eric Snowden, and even journalist Glenn Greenwald for their roles in exposing the unethical behavior of the United States in their covert activity.
The US government's position seems to be that its secrets, regardless of the broader human implications of such secrets, are absolutely necessary, necessitating the utmost measures for their protection.
However part of this story is that the United States has illegally spied upon Brazil, Mexico and France.
So the question that should be asked by the White House press corp (but I don't believe has) is: "The United States' actions indicates that nations should not expect to have their secrets respected. Isn't that the position of this administration?"
If the answer is "yes," the follow-up should be: "If that's the case, when will the administration grant an unqualified pardon/immunity to Manning, Assange, Snowden and Greenwald?"
If the answer is "no," the follow-up should be . . . . well, it should simply reflect on the gross hypocrisy of the US's position compared to its actions.
For some reason though, I've got to point out what should be glaringly obvious to those "professionals." Work that brill cream, Gregory.