Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Strange - the Guardian seems to think that investigating one alleged criminal act (interception of communications) is a good thing, and investigating another (obtaining confidential information from a Police Officer) is attacking Press freedom.
|
No evidence The Guardian paid for the confidential information and that was obtained in the course of investigating the former alleged criminal act you mention. While the interception of communications was a fishing exercise into people's private lives too obtain information which was rarely in the public interest.
No one thinks The Telegraph overstepped journalistic ethics by illegally obtaining the MP expenses files. That, as in the the case of The Guardian, is a precise query for information in which they have a reasonable chance of unearthing something in the public interest.