From the Poynter Institute to Howard Kurtz's "Media Notes" column on The Washington Post's Web site, industry analysts have provided ongoing tips about how to cover "America's New War" without appearing overly patriotic -- a task which has challenged many journalists.
But objectivity isn't the only journalistic principle needing protection.
On almost a daily basis, all of the industry's ethical standards are being put to the test as the country moves closer and closer toward war.
Two events in particular have called into question what limits the media should have in covering the terrorists attacks and so far, the actions forecast troubling times for the news industry.
First, when television networks received a film of Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the attacks, they jumped at the chance to air the footage. Obtaining the film from the mostly elusive bin Laden was seen as a coup for the industry.
But the next day, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice urged the networks to stop running the unedited tapes for fear that they could trigger additional terrorist attacks.
On first glance, it appeared that the government was overstepping its boundaries by asking the networks to not air the footage live and unedited.
But in retrospect the White House's pleas to the networks were a good call. The action forces journalists to scrutinize the bin Laden footage in the same manner in which it traditionally analyzes information from sources.
Given the many ways bin Laden has managed to manipulate millions, the media should have been more responsible. No further attacks were triggered by the footage, but next time we might not be so lucky. Previewing the tapes is no different than editing a news package, and it is worth the extra effort.