"Nobody likes a TattleTale" :O

       The article I chose had a very interesting title. At first glance I thought it was simply about phone hacking but when it was read the article is suggesting that the British government wants the reporters of the newspapers to give up their confidential sources. In doing so, it would destroy the integrity of the reporters and the newspapers. Confidential informants are confidential for a reason. If you (the paper or reporter) reveal your sources it will make you untrustworthy. It wouldn’t make the newspaper look good to give out names. The Met police want people to reveal that type of information because it links potential damaging evidence in a case. If newspapers and reporters were to just start handing over information to the police no one would ever want to share information with that paper again for fear of being turned over to the police. Then what’s the point of being a C.I? In America we have a different outlook on informants. Although primarily used by law enforcement agents C.I’s done consort with reporters. In the U.K. there is no way to be anonymous because of their Official Secrets Act. The British Government is trying to embed in our heads that it’s alright to give out leaked information when it’s involving a murder case or any case for that matter. When the police ask for the papers to divulge privilege information such as names as informants they are infringing people rights to freedom of press. Freedom of press is the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.(dictionary.com). The police are infringing on freedom of press that essentially saying that if you don’t want us to ask about your C.I’s and turn it over to us then you shouldn’t write about it. If you do then it’s violating the Official Secrets Act.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/uk-met-police-guardian-phone-hacking-sources_n_966364.html