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.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/10/spies-journalism-security-daily-mail-editorial
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Spies and journalism: when worlds collide | Spies and journalism: when worlds collide |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| After the man who hated Britain, welcome to the paper that helps Britain's enemies. You are reading it now. The Daily Mail, which recently poured scorn on a dead man by distorting and misrepresenting his views, has now turned its focus on this newspaper, claiming we have behaved with "lethal irresponsibility" in reporting the issues raised by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Ralph Miliband was unable to answer back. We can. | After the man who hated Britain, welcome to the paper that helps Britain's enemies. You are reading it now. The Daily Mail, which recently poured scorn on a dead man by distorting and misrepresenting his views, has now turned its focus on this newspaper, claiming we have behaved with "lethal irresponsibility" in reporting the issues raised by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Ralph Miliband was unable to answer back. We can. |
| Thursday's Daily Mail editorial compared the Guardian unfavourably with Professor Miliband. While he apparently "wanted to smash all the traditions and institutions which make Britain British", he never gave practical help to our enemies or placed British lives at risk. The Mail is incredulous that, having been asked to stop publishing any more stories by a senior intelligence officer, a newspaper should say that it will apply its editorial judgment about publishing more material, taking care not to endanger life. "How, in the name of sanity can he [the editor] know," asks the Mail. "He's a journalist, not an expert on security." | Thursday's Daily Mail editorial compared the Guardian unfavourably with Professor Miliband. While he apparently "wanted to smash all the traditions and institutions which make Britain British", he never gave practical help to our enemies or placed British lives at risk. The Mail is incredulous that, having been asked to stop publishing any more stories by a senior intelligence officer, a newspaper should say that it will apply its editorial judgment about publishing more material, taking care not to endanger life. "How, in the name of sanity can he [the editor] know," asks the Mail. "He's a journalist, not an expert on security." |
| The first thing we should say is that we welcome the fact that, at last, we have a debate in this country. The Mail and other papers which have studiously ignored the raging global discussion about the proper limits of surveillance over the past few months will now find it harder to ignore. If they have been reading the comments on their websites they will know that their own readers are actually extremely interested in these issues and take a broadly balanced view far removed from the shrill denunciations of anonymous editorialists. | The first thing we should say is that we welcome the fact that, at last, we have a debate in this country. The Mail and other papers which have studiously ignored the raging global discussion about the proper limits of surveillance over the past few months will now find it harder to ignore. If they have been reading the comments on their websites they will know that their own readers are actually extremely interested in these issues and take a broadly balanced view far removed from the shrill denunciations of anonymous editorialists. |
| Secondly, we acknowledge that – of course – there is a tension between the total secrecy that intelligence agencies crave and the transparency that, in all other circumstances, democracies demand. This country needs spies, but those who do it for a living will never welcome the attentions of the press. Their condemnation of inquiring journalism is age old, almost ritualistic. The publisher of Der Spiegel was detained for treason in 1962. Ten years later, Nixon's security apparatchiks wheeled out similar arguments against the newspapers that dared to publish the Pentagon Papers. Those assaults on the press now look dangerous and absurd. Journalists should treat the remarks of intelligence chiefs with the same balance of respect and scepticism they reserve for all public officials. | Secondly, we acknowledge that – of course – there is a tension between the total secrecy that intelligence agencies crave and the transparency that, in all other circumstances, democracies demand. This country needs spies, but those who do it for a living will never welcome the attentions of the press. Their condemnation of inquiring journalism is age old, almost ritualistic. The publisher of Der Spiegel was detained for treason in 1962. Ten years later, Nixon's security apparatchiks wheeled out similar arguments against the newspapers that dared to publish the Pentagon Papers. Those assaults on the press now look dangerous and absurd. Journalists should treat the remarks of intelligence chiefs with the same balance of respect and scepticism they reserve for all public officials. |
| The Mail's leading article must be read in the context of a fervent discussion about press regulation in which it is leading the charge for journalists to be both free and trusted. But Thursday's editorial argues the opposite. It is a statement of anti-journalism: editors, it says, cannot be trusted. They must defer to the state. We sent the Mail's editorial to two dozen of the most respected editors in the world – many of whom are quite familiar with the exercise of using their best editorial judgment to balance issues of security against the wish to inform their readers on matters of high public importance. Here are their contributions. Virtually unanimously they reject the Daily Mail's concept of journalism, as expressed in Thursday's editorial. In stark contrast to some in the UK press, they have over recent months covered the Snowden disclosures in considerable depth. They include editors from the New York Times and Washington Post who have themselves handled Snowden's secret US intelligence agency documents. Collectively and in calm tones, these distinguished editors make a powerful and thoughtful case for journalism itself. Our searchlight, they say, should be shone on security matters as brightly as anything else. | |
| The recent global debate over mass surveillance, its limits and its oversight has been richly textured, sometimes passionate and vital. It has included politicians, academics, technologists, spies, cryptologists, civil libertarians, businessmen and countless millions who use phones or email and have understandable fears about who looks at what. Mail readers are as entitled as anyone else to know the facts – and to join the debate. | The recent global debate over mass surveillance, its limits and its oversight has been richly textured, sometimes passionate and vital. It has included politicians, academics, technologists, spies, cryptologists, civil libertarians, businessmen and countless millions who use phones or email and have understandable fears about who looks at what. Mail readers are as entitled as anyone else to know the facts – and to join the debate. |
| • This article was amended on 11 October 2013 to remove a repetition of the word "academics" in the final paragraph | |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |