Should the Sun reveal the police officer(s) who told it lis about the Hillsborough tragedy?

[Gromit]

Parliament is debating whether to release secret papers relating to the Hillsborough tragedy after an online e-petition got over 200,000 signitures.

The families of the dead also want to know they source of the Sun's infamous report which said Liverpool fans urinated on the dying (amongst other thing). The report into the tragedy for no basis of truth in the Sun's report. The information came, off the record, from police.

Should the familes be told who lied about their dead sons?


http://www.journalism...e-sources/s2/a546364/

[rojash]

Yes.
It's important that Newspapers should be able to protect their sources. But when the sources are simply propagating lies, then they have no right to anonymity.

[Gromit]

The question is not who was to blame for the tragedy, it is who told lies to the Sun.

[Gromit]

The powers that be do not have any jurisdiction over the Sun. They can only deliver the Cabinet papers which are secret under the 30 year rule. Whether that happens is different than the Sun fessing up their unreliable sources.

[THECORBYLOON]

The Home Secretary has said several times now that all the Cabinet papers will be relewsed to the special Hillsborough Panel.

[DTCwordfan]

The commission to be chaired by Dr Fox or Adam Werrity?

[bigbadmarty]

Of course it should but somehow I doubt they will .

[Gromit]

THECORBYLOON,

The Sun's sources are not in the Cabinet papers. The Government, won't, cannot divulge that information. The question is, should the Sun now reveal who misled them?

[DTCwordfan]

And James (Rupert) Murdoch is going to do that at this time? Get real.

[THECORBYLOON]

I've been watching the debate and if there is even a hint of any paper being kept past there will be hell to pay

[THECORBYLOON]

I was replying to those who seemed to think the Government would not release all the docs

[jno]

it wasn't just the Sun

http://www.guardian.c...hillsborough-disaster

but the other papers that ran the story sensibly prefaced it with "According to police" or similar words.

I'm sensitive to newspapers' wishes to protect sources; how else would we hear about MPs' expenses, for instance? It's up to the newspaper in question to assess the merits of a story before running it. As the link above suggests, other papers did this better than the Sun

Personally, I can't see the point of revealing the liar's name - he just lied, he didn't kill anyone; nobody's going to achieve 'closure' just because he's been identified. The people at fault here are the Sun, and they've duly paid the price because nobody in Liverpool will buy them. If they want to name the person who landed them in this mess, fine; but I don't think they should be forced to.

[Gromit]

// he just lied, he didn't kill anyone //

It was not a singular police officer. The narrative that the fans were at blame came about very quickly when the police realised the enormity of their failure. They quickly had to shift the blame. The off the record briefings to the press were sanctioned from high up within the police.

To excuse it, or say it doesn't change anything is wrong. Those briefings and the vile headlines and stories they generated cause a great deal of unnecessary distress to 96 families who were grieving. The lies were dispicable, and their origins should be revealled.

[sandyRoe]

Imagine a police officer briefed the press. Would he be the one to be named and shamed?
It's likely he would have been acting on orders from much higher up.

[minimonkey]

Gromit, I think you only have one answer you want here anyway don't you? a rhetorical question

[Gromit]

Minimonkey

You are right. It was bad enough that this tragedy happened when there an estimated 2000* police offices on duty that day, but to lie and blame innocent dead people is unforgivable.

* South Yorkshire Police will not even reveal exactly how many officers were there. A Freedom of Information request about police numbers 22 years ago was refused using exemption clauses (to the FOI Act).
http://www.southyorks...isclosurelog/20100216

[China Doll]

I think I agree with jno, I'm not sure exactly what revealing who lied accomplishes really. Obviously it was a hideous thing to do but positive thing would actually come out of revealing who told the lies? (Not being contentious, I'm genuinely curious as to what other people think).

[sp1814]

Gromit

It still happens. Remember in the days after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes we started hearing stories that he'd jumped the barriers at Stockwell tube station, that he was a suspect in a rape case and that he'd been wearing a thick bomber jacket?

All turned out to be untrue - but those who propogated the stories were never brought to book.