Why is this a "Leak"?

I'm still amused by the breaking Sandy Berger story last week. Do you still need evidence of a liberal bias in the news?

A former National Security Advisor, preparing for testimony before the 9/11 commission related to his administration's handling of terrorism, walks out of the National Archives with all of the copies from the White House file of a terrorism report stuffed in his socks. Is that the headline? No. The headlines in the national press were centered on the Democrat's outrage that anyone would ascribe devious motives to this innocent act of sloppiness. Also, the "news" outlets parroted the Democrats suscpicion on the timing of the "leaks" about the Berger investigation by the FBI?

Leaks? What leaks? Who said it was a leak?

Why is it a leak? It can only be a "leak" if it is secret or classified information that was inappropriately divulged to the public.

Why is an investigation by the FBI of the theft of classified documents by a formal federal official a secret? Why does it have to be "leaked"? Why wasn't this public information from day one?

There used to be a time when it wasn't as clear that the mainstream press was an arm of the Democratic party. A time when a journalist discovering a federal investigation of a former federal official would call it "news", not a "leak". 

Of course, it is news. And, of course, the Democrats are just doing their usual scandal diversion by shouting "look over there - eek! it's a leak" to cover up for one of their own getting caught in misdeeds.

But journalists shouldn't be aiding their diversion.

For the journallistically impaired journalists out there - I'll help you out. The story is the theft of national security documents, not a "leak". Now, go and pretend you know how to report a story.