All industries have practices and procedures they’re probably not too willing to share with the public at large.
Just as MPs have recently undergone a public airing of their expense (and, in some cases, expensive) laundry, so now journalists are finding some of their less-admirable tactics exposed to the world at large.
The latest scandal to work the media into a frenzy is journogate (or hackergate, depending on your news outlet of choice). The Guardian, clearly keen to outdo the outrage shown by The Telegraph in its own recent news-coup; it has lifted the lid on processes said to have been employed by News of the World when on the trail of stories.
Some of journalism’s “dark arts” to have come under the spotlight this week include rifling through bins for documents, sleeping with sources and, of course, hacking into people’s phone messages, which has had all manner of sports stars, celebrities and other public figures scurrying to their lawyers.
It could potentially be argued that if the information gleaned using these less salubrious tactics is in the public interest, we shouldn’t be too hard on those journalists who break the law to get at it.
But is that really acceptable, in an age where data protection is balanced by the Freedom of Information Act? Surely there are better – less murky – ways of finding the information you’re after, even if they do take rather longer.
It is fair enough not to want to share all one’s secrets with the world: much of everyday life would be far less palatable if we knew what went into creating it. Illusionists and magicians everywhere would be out of jobs if we knew the sleights of hand to look for. Even the illustrious Leo McGarry told his team that some things were best kept behind closed doors: “Two things you don’t want the public to see how they’re made? Laws, and sausages.”
But when those practices move from the indigestible to the illegal, surely it’s time to find another way of doing things?
