And so, e-mails and tweets arrive asking what I think of the exposure of anonymous police blogger NightJack by The Times. I think you should probably read the couple of compilations of links that Judith has done on journalism.co.uk and her own blog. And I think you should probably read what another anonymous police blogger, PC Bloggs says about it. And you should remember that The Times has form here.
But if you want to know what I, personally, think, here it is:
But if you want to know what I, personally, think, here it is:
I think that it's absolutely despicable that a journalistic operation
did this. The "public interest" figleaf they're using blows away the
second you consider that they've made it easier for people to connect
the blog posts with real cases, not harder.
I've seen journalists in several places saying things to the effect that this proves that anonymous whistleblowers should go to journalists to expose things of public interest. But it was journalists that exposed NightJack.
So, the attitude seems to be: "Nice story you've got there, guv. Better give it to us, 'cos it'd be a shame if your identity became public knowledge, wouldn't it?"
That's a protection racket, and it's how organised criminal gangs work, not respected journalists.
No wonder the public have such disdain for us.
I've seen journalists in several places saying things to the effect that this proves that anonymous whistleblowers should go to journalists to expose things of public interest. But it was journalists that exposed NightJack.
So, the attitude seems to be: "Nice story you've got there, guv. Better give it to us, 'cos it'd be a shame if your identity became public knowledge, wouldn't it?"
That's a protection racket, and it's how organised criminal gangs work, not respected journalists.
No wonder the public have such disdain for us.
Hear hear - it was a vile thing to do. The Times went down more than a few notches in my estimation with this nonsense...