You could make the argument that a news organization in possession of stolen documents has a legitimate claim to possessing them for the public good. An individual could not reasonably make the same claims.
> but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials?
If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other.
> If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?
The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.
And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.
In this case, it is actually an interesting discussion because you can use the same arguments in a discussion about whether we should have a direct or representative democracy.
I still don't understand why you're suggesting journalists have a status different to that of Tom from down the street.
From whence doth their rights come forth?
I think most of the population puts journalists somewhere between rat catchers and dog walkers. Somebody has to do it I suppose but I don't like them putting on great airs.