Are Cablegates Tabloid or
Responsible Journalism to
Protect Public Interests
Was Tony Gallagher, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, justified in publishing statements by Vince Cable that were secretly recorded by his reporters when posing as Cable's constituents?
Cable, unsurprisingly, thinks not, as he made very clear in an interview with the Richmond and Twickenham Times.
Two leading media commentators - Peter Preston of The Observer and Stephen GloverThe Independent - expressed reservations on Radio 4's Today programme. of
John Lloyd, in the Financial Times, was unimpressed, questioning the breach of "an implied contract of confidentiality for the meagre reward of showing that a politician is attempting a balancing act in pursuit of the country continuing to be governed, and the largely hypocritical howl of the rest of the media expressing shock at the predictable hypocrisies of politicians."
Journalism academic Martin Conboy, of Sheffield University, saw it in similar terms. He said: "The losers are the public. You end up with the public disillusioned with the subterfuge of journalists [and] the perceived hypocrisies of politicians."
Another journalism academic, Ivor Gaberof City University London, said: "I'm very concerned about this use of using subterfuge as a fishing trip. We're moving into a terribly worrying Stalinist society, where people are being tapped up for 'unclean' thoughts."
The Scottish media commentator, Kenneth Roy, was scathing about the Telegraph's act of subterfuge, viewing it in terms of the press becoming "the new self-appointed thought police."
My colleague, Maggie Brown, came down on the side of disclosure for a variety of reasons, some journalistic, some political.
Another colleague, Michael White, initially argued that there was no public interest defence for the Telegraph's actions, but changed his mind some hours later when Cable's anti-Murdoch outburst emerged.
Tom Bower, the journalist and biographer, expressed what I imagine to be the majority opinion among British reporters and editors. "The two journalists did a great service to parliamentary democracy," he told Sky News.
So who is right? If we believe in disclosure, as all journalists surely must, then deciding what should and should not be published is, inevitably, a tough call.
Even tougher still is deciding what methods to use in order to facilitate disclosure.
Editors, especially those on national newspapers, face these dilemmas on a regular, sometimes daily, basis. In a very real sense, they are always operating in a grey area.
They have been helped considerably in recent years by the editors' code of practice because it does offer a guide to action based around a broad public interest test.
The key sentence applicable to the Cable case states that there is a public interest defence to "preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation."
Though I have no problems with almost all of the code, this single sentence has troubled me in the past, not least in its use - usually by the News of the World - to justify stories in which it decides that a person has been guilty of hypocrisy.
Usually, this has involved celebrities, and I have been critical of the paper. However, when it comes to politicians, the "rules" are surely different. That is doubly true during a coalition government cobbled together by parties that have been mutually antagonistic throughout their histories.
All we have to go on as voters are the public statements and actions of our elected representatives. We might have an inkling that they speak with forked tongue. but proof of the fact is rare.
To hear an MP, a minister no less, say that he was less than enthusiastic about his government colleagues and avowedly hostile to a man (Rupert Murdoch) whose business fate was in his hands was an astonishing revelation.
Would the paper have been able to get Cable - and the other Lib Dem MPs - to vent the true feelings without using subterfuge? Of course not.
I accept that what passes between constituent and MP carries a certain privilege though, in all honesty, if Cable had spoken to a non-journalist in such terms he could hardly complain if the person had repeated his words. He was foolish, and has paid for it.
I do believe there was an aspect of a fishing expedition in the Telegraph reporters' methods. But within Westminster there has been plenty of gossip in the recent months of Lib Dem ministers and back-benchers finding life with the Tories rather uncomfortable.
Yes, they were fishing. But there was a degree of prima facie evidence.
I understand that the Press Complaints Commission had, as of an hour ago, received 25 complaints, though none of them came from the MPs caught out in the Telegraph sting.
All the complainants have cited clause 10 of the editors' code, the one about the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge. It states, in part:
Similarly, I cannot see any merit in the view of David Howarth, a former shadow solicitor general and Lib Dem MP, that the Telegraph reporters committed a criminal offence. His argument is a nonsense on stilts.
What the Cable-Telegraph revelation illustrates, just as in the WikiLeaks affair, is that rulers cannot operate in secrecy and cannot say one thing in public and another in private.
Journalists who oppose what the Telegraph has done to Cable - and what the papers have done by running the US embassy cables - are arguing against the broadening of democracy.
The more people know about their elected representatives, the better. The more people know the truth, the better. Indeed, the more that people know about anything and everything, the better. Isn't that what journalism is all about?
Cable, unsurprisingly, thinks not, as he made very clear in an interview with the Richmond and Twickenham Times.
Two leading media commentators - Peter Preston of The Observer and Stephen GloverThe Independent - expressed reservations on Radio 4's Today programme. of
John Lloyd, in the Financial Times, was unimpressed, questioning the breach of "an implied contract of confidentiality for the meagre reward of showing that a politician is attempting a balancing act in pursuit of the country continuing to be governed, and the largely hypocritical howl of the rest of the media expressing shock at the predictable hypocrisies of politicians."
Journalism academic Martin Conboy, of Sheffield University, saw it in similar terms. He said: "The losers are the public. You end up with the public disillusioned with the subterfuge of journalists [and] the perceived hypocrisies of politicians."
Another journalism academic, Ivor Gaberof City University London, said: "I'm very concerned about this use of using subterfuge as a fishing trip. We're moving into a terribly worrying Stalinist society, where people are being tapped up for 'unclean' thoughts."
The Scottish media commentator, Kenneth Roy, was scathing about the Telegraph's act of subterfuge, viewing it in terms of the press becoming "the new self-appointed thought police."
My colleague, Maggie Brown, came down on the side of disclosure for a variety of reasons, some journalistic, some political.
Another colleague, Michael White, initially argued that there was no public interest defence for the Telegraph's actions, but changed his mind some hours later when Cable's anti-Murdoch outburst emerged.
Tom Bower, the journalist and biographer, expressed what I imagine to be the majority opinion among British reporters and editors. "The two journalists did a great service to parliamentary democracy," he told Sky News.
So who is right? If we believe in disclosure, as all journalists surely must, then deciding what should and should not be published is, inevitably, a tough call.
Even tougher still is deciding what methods to use in order to facilitate disclosure.
Editors, especially those on national newspapers, face these dilemmas on a regular, sometimes daily, basis. In a very real sense, they are always operating in a grey area.
They have been helped considerably in recent years by the editors' code of practice because it does offer a guide to action based around a broad public interest test.
The key sentence applicable to the Cable case states that there is a public interest defence to "preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation."
Though I have no problems with almost all of the code, this single sentence has troubled me in the past, not least in its use - usually by the News of the World - to justify stories in which it decides that a person has been guilty of hypocrisy.
Usually, this has involved celebrities, and I have been critical of the paper. However, when it comes to politicians, the "rules" are surely different. That is doubly true during a coalition government cobbled together by parties that have been mutually antagonistic throughout their histories.
All we have to go on as voters are the public statements and actions of our elected representatives. We might have an inkling that they speak with forked tongue. but proof of the fact is rare.
To hear an MP, a minister no less, say that he was less than enthusiastic about his government colleagues and avowedly hostile to a man (Rupert Murdoch) whose business fate was in his hands was an astonishing revelation.
Would the paper have been able to get Cable - and the other Lib Dem MPs - to vent the true feelings without using subterfuge? Of course not.
I accept that what passes between constituent and MP carries a certain privilege though, in all honesty, if Cable had spoken to a non-journalist in such terms he could hardly complain if the person had repeated his words. He was foolish, and has paid for it.
I do believe there was an aspect of a fishing expedition in the Telegraph reporters' methods. But within Westminster there has been plenty of gossip in the recent months of Lib Dem ministers and back-benchers finding life with the Tories rather uncomfortable.
Yes, they were fishing. But there was a degree of prima facie evidence.
I understand that the Press Complaints Commission had, as of an hour ago, received 25 complaints, though none of them came from the MPs caught out in the Telegraph sting.
All the complainants have cited clause 10 of the editors' code, the one about the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge. It states, in part:
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices...I think, on balance (and balance and/or proportionality are crucial criteria when assessing what is right or not in this area), the paper can justify what it did. I'd be amazed if the PCC thought otherwise.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge... can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
Similarly, I cannot see any merit in the view of David Howarth, a former shadow solicitor general and Lib Dem MP, that the Telegraph reporters committed a criminal offence. His argument is a nonsense on stilts.
What the Cable-Telegraph revelation illustrates, just as in the WikiLeaks affair, is that rulers cannot operate in secrecy and cannot say one thing in public and another in private.
Journalists who oppose what the Telegraph has done to Cable - and what the papers have done by running the US embassy cables - are arguing against the broadening of democracy.
The more people know about their elected representatives, the better. The more people know the truth, the better. Indeed, the more that people know about anything and everything, the better. Isn't that what journalism is all about?
Linking Cable and the embassy cables - public interest disclosure is justified | Media | guardian.co.uk