This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/journalistic-sources-law-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Journalistic sources and the law: blowing the whistle on truth-tellers Journalistic sources and the law: blowing the whistle on truth-tellers
(7 months later)
When this newspaper spent two years uncovering the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World, we were faced with a particularly powerful obstacle in the shape of the senior ranks of the Metropolitan police who repeatedly told the press, public and parliament that our stories were wrong. The then commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and his assistant commissioner, John Yates, separately visited the Guardian's offices with their director of communications, Dick Fedorcio, for private meetings where they repeated this line. Following our final success in exposing the core of the scandal, all three men resigned, and witnesses from the Met police went on to tell a very different tale in evidence to parliamentary committees and the Leveson inquiry.When this newspaper spent two years uncovering the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World, we were faced with a particularly powerful obstacle in the shape of the senior ranks of the Metropolitan police who repeatedly told the press, public and parliament that our stories were wrong. The then commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, and his assistant commissioner, John Yates, separately visited the Guardian's offices with their director of communications, Dick Fedorcio, for private meetings where they repeated this line. Following our final success in exposing the core of the scandal, all three men resigned, and witnesses from the Met police went on to tell a very different tale in evidence to parliamentary committees and the Leveson inquiry.
It is fair to say that the Guardian finally uncovered the facts only because our sources included other serving officers who came to the conclusion that their bosses were wrong and that the truth needed to be told. With great discretion, they assisted our inquiry. These officers asked for no money and no favour. They received none. They were not irresponsible nor malicious. They simply made the judgment that the public needed to be told the truth. They blew the whistle.It is fair to say that the Guardian finally uncovered the facts only because our sources included other serving officers who came to the conclusion that their bosses were wrong and that the truth needed to be told. With great discretion, they assisted our inquiry. These officers asked for no money and no favour. They received none. They were not irresponsible nor malicious. They simply made the judgment that the public needed to be told the truth. They blew the whistle.
In this light, it is ironic – to put it at its lowest – that the senior ranks of the Met and other forces have taken advantage of the phone-hacking affair to try to make it more difficult for their officers to work with journalists to disclose information which is being concealed to the detriment of the public interest. In September 2011, only two months after the scandal finally came to a climax, the Met attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to force two Guardian reporters to hand over notebooks and computer records in order to identify sources who had assisted our investigation of phone hacking. In the face of widespread protest, they retreated. However, they persisted in their wider effort.In this light, it is ironic – to put it at its lowest – that the senior ranks of the Met and other forces have taken advantage of the phone-hacking affair to try to make it more difficult for their officers to work with journalists to disclose information which is being concealed to the detriment of the public interest. In September 2011, only two months after the scandal finally came to a climax, the Met attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to force two Guardian reporters to hand over notebooks and computer records in order to identify sources who had assisted our investigation of phone hacking. In the face of widespread protest, they retreated. However, they persisted in their wider effort.
Last week saw a sign of their success when the Home Office accepted police arguments that the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act should be amended in two ways: to make it easier for them to seize journalists' notebooks and computer records; and to make it more difficult for journalists to conceal the identity of confidential sources. The Home Office is putting these proposals out for consultation.Last week saw a sign of their success when the Home Office accepted police arguments that the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act should be amended in two ways: to make it easier for them to seize journalists' notebooks and computer records; and to make it more difficult for journalists to conceal the identity of confidential sources. The Home Office is putting these proposals out for consultation.
Yet during this same week, the general vulnerability of whistleblowers has been underlined again by the experience of Gary Walker, the former chief executive of the United Lincolnshire NHS trust. His attempts to bring to public attention a history of alleged mismanagement leading to the deaths of patients were met with a fierce response from the trust's lawyers that, if he dared to speak out, he would have to repay the sum he had received when he was dismissed by them – a dismissal, he says, which flowed directly from his internal efforts to address the problems which were threatening patient safety. Having spent £100,000 on legal fees to challenge his dismissal, Mr Walker saw the prospect of also losing his compensation payment as effectively a threat to ruin him. Nevertheless, he spoke out.Yet during this same week, the general vulnerability of whistleblowers has been underlined again by the experience of Gary Walker, the former chief executive of the United Lincolnshire NHS trust. His attempts to bring to public attention a history of alleged mismanagement leading to the deaths of patients were met with a fierce response from the trust's lawyers that, if he dared to speak out, he would have to repay the sum he had received when he was dismissed by them – a dismissal, he says, which flowed directly from his internal efforts to address the problems which were threatening patient safety. Having spent £100,000 on legal fees to challenge his dismissal, Mr Walker saw the prospect of also losing his compensation payment as effectively a threat to ruin him. Nevertheless, he spoke out.
While the health secretary has made sympathetic noises in the wake of the Walker case, there is clearly a much broader – and important – distinction between the employee who discloses information in the public interest and the crude leaker who wants cash reward or who interferes with the required function of his or her organisation. It is a distinction which appears to have been lost, not only by senior police officers in their lobbying and in some recent arrests but also by government.While the health secretary has made sympathetic noises in the wake of the Walker case, there is clearly a much broader – and important – distinction between the employee who discloses information in the public interest and the crude leaker who wants cash reward or who interferes with the required function of his or her organisation. It is a distinction which appears to have been lost, not only by senior police officers in their lobbying and in some recent arrests but also by government.
Democracy cannot work when secrecy exceeds its proper limits. The press cannot work when important information is suppressed. It is not enough to allow the leadership of any organisation to exercise unchallenged control of the facts which it discloses. Hospitals, banks, corporations, meat producers and police forces alike must be open to scrutiny. The genuine whistleblower needs more protection, not more restraint.Democracy cannot work when secrecy exceeds its proper limits. The press cannot work when important information is suppressed. It is not enough to allow the leadership of any organisation to exercise unchallenged control of the facts which it discloses. Hospitals, banks, corporations, meat producers and police forces alike must be open to scrutiny. The genuine whistleblower needs more protection, not more restraint.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.