It is my belief that the definition of FOIA is expansive enough for journalists to get the information they need. I believe what is allowable is constitutionally entitled. There are certain things that we as a nation have to keep secret. Not everything can be known by the journalist. Many of these cases have to do with spying missions or terrorism cases.
The FOIA allows people to get any information that isn't protected from public disclosure. I think this allows journalists to get the information they have a right to get without infringing anyone's rights. If a journalist wanted information about making weapons then they should not be able to get that. It should also not be able to get information about sensitive information such as government protection processes. This can easily be obtained by a hacker on someone's computer that had this information requested.
No, the FOIA definition is not expansive enough to allow journalists to get all of the information to which they are constitutionally entitled, because the FOIA does not allow them to get all of the information. Law enforcement and other government organizations claim that there is no information when there is. They leave things out when it is convenient for them.
I do not believe the FOIS definition is expansive enough to allow journalists to get all of the information the need, nor that they are constitutionally entitled too. The government holds more secrets than necessary, this is known fact. The FOIA does little to offer the documents it claims are open for requests. Many documents are altered to the point that they are unreadable and many requests go unanswered.