'Legitimate journalists to be allowed to hack and blagg personal info

[Gromit]

The News of the World used some dubious practices to find gossip and tittle tattle about celebs and crime victims. There was an outcry about their methods. Some people argue (including me) that if the hacking was in the public interest ie. to expose a criminal or a Government cover up, then use of hacking should be permitted. A grey area I realise, and I could be accused of applying double standards.

Now the Government is to introduce guidelines to allow 'proper' journalists to hack and blagg to get 'real' stories.

Does the ends justify the means, or is this just introducing a loophole?

http://www.telegraph....son-Inquiry-live.html



http://www.telegraph....son-Inquiry-live.html

[boxtops]

How does one define a legitimate journalist? - where is the line drawn?

[Zacs-Master]

Surely it is up to the police / security services to carry out such hacking on genuine suspects of such behaviour. It has already been proved that the press would not simply use this on security/ criminal targets.

[jno]

I think this is probably the situation at the moment, except that a journalist currently has to persuade a jury that his actions were in the public interest. Under this proposal as I read it, prosecutors would have to consider it before actually starting a prosecution. So that might save some time and money.

[sandyRoe]

Journalists got their hands on the parliamentary expenses story by dubious means. With a strictly regulated press we might still be paying to have duck houses decorated.

[jackthehat]

The sooner that people start to understand that things which interest the public are *not* the same as things that are in the public interest, the better!

The behaviour of major, or minor, 'slebs is of precious little importance in the real world, whereas the behaviour and dealings of the movers and shakers, the great and the good is of far greater significance.

The failure of the gutter hacks and press to differentiate between the two has brought us to this state of affairs. It would be a shame that this failure to self-moderate resulted in 'bad people' getting away with bad things.

[jno]

sandyRoe, yes, and the MPs' expenses was a Telegraph "scoop" (ie purchase), so they have a particular interest in running the story linked to. But I don't think they ever faced any prosecution over it, so actually the proposed change would have made no difference. It was clearly in the public interest.

[Gromit]

It has been suggested that tighter regulation of newspapers by Government is an excuse to beat the press because it expised MP's Expenses excesses. The timing could be coincidental or it could be payback.

[Zacs-Master]

So government excuses expised excessive expenses. Exactly.

[Zacs-Master]

Or did they expose them?

[Gromit]

Sorry for the typo

[douglas9401]

I can smell a fee based licencing scheme for "proper" journalists to pay into. Like everything else in the world of politics credibility and honesty can be had ..........at a price.

[Davethedog]

This will be used to licence journalists otherwise how do you "legitimise" them.

Then sometime passes a journalist gets a story on a minister and the government threaten to withdraw his licence,

Big brother is coming when the written media dissapears every dissenting voice on the internet, blogger or not, will be able to be controlled, barred or compromised.

Big Brother will kill your freedom's

[Zacs-Master]

Won't this just create a black Market for forged licenses, or for the legitimate journalists to take bribes from the non legit ones, for information?