If I were going to re-title the talk today, I'd probably keep the dog metaphor, but go for something with a bit more bite.

Of course, the answer is that we are neither.

A lot has been written lately about whether the american press has pulled its punches in reaction to a national mood-and an administration--that puts a premium on patriotism. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that's in fact the case, but the pressure to put patriotism above the people's right to know is indisputable.

That is real, and I don't need to give this well-informed audience more than a short bill of particulars:.

• Attorney general John Ashcroft warns people to "watch what they say" and assures federal agencies they can turn down freedom of information requests with cover from his department.
• National security adviser Condolezza Rice asks news organizations not to air bin laden tapes for the specious reason that they may contain coded messages--and they comply.
• Flags billow at the bottom of cable news broadcasts.
• A recent first amendment center/american journalism review poll finds-for the first time in the history of the poll-that almost half of those surveyed think the first amendment goes too far in the freedoms it guarantees.

An alarming 42 percent think that the American press has too much freedom.

And more than 40 percent say newspapers should not be allowed to freely criticize the U.S. military's strategy and performance.

When President Bush said that 'freedom and fear are at war" shortly after the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., he was referring to a free America and the fear generated by terrorists in command of hurtling airliners.

But now, I submit, we have a second front in that war, and it's right here at home. It's a war between freedom of the press and an atmosphere of fear that has made many Americans consider serious, probing, skeptical journalism inappropriate at best and treasonous at worst. In short, it's a time of testing for american journalists and the news organizations for which they work.

How we meet this challenge will determine not only the future of American journalism, but the future of democracy as we know it. A bold statement, I know, but hear me out.

For me, the issue comes down to one of trust-a commodity in short supply these days.  Public confidence is sagging in nearly every sector of our common life. Who can believe in big business after the deceit and self- dealing at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and Arthur Anderson? Who can believe in the leadership of the Catholic church after it sheltered abusive priests for decades?

Who can believe in Washington when the rationale for war with Iraq changes from disarmament to regime change and back to disarmament again, depending on the "message of the day;" when links between Saddam Hussein and al qaeda are asserted but never proven, and when several of our highest officials openly insult our traditional European allies.

Yet we are asked to accept that the threat is clear, the war justified, that somehow, those in power know better than we do what's good for America. As Jonathan Alter said in a recent Newsweek column: "Trust me isn't good enough."

And Congress?

The institution where robust debate about all this should be expected, remains an eerie echo chamber.

Then there's the press. We're used to this.We've always had a trust problem. The public sees us as either too liberal or too conservative, too soft or too hard. We're rapped for being complacent, cynical, sensational, irresponsible, inaccurate, unethical......you name it.

And all of these criticisms are true, to a greater or lesser degree, at any one time, depending on the news organization and the story being covered..

We stepped up to the plate in a magnificent way on Sept. 11th, no question about it. But it's humbling to remember that only a month or two earlier we were wallowing in the tawdry swamp of Gary Condit and Chandra Levy.

Now, in addition to all the usual doubts the public has about us, there's a new one. And it can be summed up in one of our president's favorite phrases: "Are you with us or against us?"

Is the American press supportive of the war effort-or at least not perceived to be detrimental to it-or is it not?

This kind of rally round the flag effect- this us and them way of looking at the press - isn't new.

Americans have always huddled around their leaders during national crises-and the press has often reflected that burly nationalism..

The difference this time is that the national crisis-the war on terrorism, of which the administration says the battle with Iraq is just one step-is conceivably a war without end.

So whatever concessions the press makes to war time limits on access to information, or freedom of expression, whatever reticence it may have about probing too deeply or criticizing too strongly--could become our new status quo.

Susan Tifft is Eugene C. Patterson Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy Studies at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy.