Oliver Kamm and Nightjack
Oliver Kamm is unhappy at my criticism this week of The Times decision to out Nightjack.
Now as it happens, I like Kamms blog (as I do his doppelkammer John Rentoul) and so I was among the first to read his counterblast.
But The Times man is just plain wrong about this one. And its clear he hadnt really read much Nightjack.
He argues that Richard Horton (the copper behind Nightjack) breached the "ethos of confidentiality and political neutrality" required of a public servant.
First, there is absolutely no evidence that anything Nightjack wrote breached anyones confidentiality. He was very careful not to identify the people he was writing about, not least (doh!) because that would give away his own identity.
Second, he didnt breach any political neutrality guidelines - hemainly offered his opinion on public policy. I would challenge anyone to say whether they thought he was a Tory, Lib Dem or Labour (or UKIP) voter from anything he wrote.
Third, Kamm says he sought to protect his own anonymity purely for "his own convenience". Not exactly. He wanted to protect a body of work that in a small way offered an insight into the life of a police officer.
Fourth, what iota of public interest was actually served inout Nightjack? None. It was a trivial desire to expose for exposures sake. I know newspapers instinctively loathe injunctions (so do I), but cool heads would have realised fightingthis was not worth the candle.
Fifth, on Kamms Law, every civil servant, every public servant who has leaked anything to a newspaper would be ripe for exposure (and thankfully they still exist) ...by those same newspapers. Bizarre.
Yet what really struck me was the glaring, internal contradiction in Kamms piece.
"The first I knew of NightJacks legal case was when I read about it in this newspaper. To this day, I have spoken to literally nobody at The Times about the case, and am giving a personal and disinterested view."
So he admits he knows nothing about the details of exactly how Nightjack was exposed by The Times reporter.
But then Kamm goes on to state as fact that the "reporter had discovered the identity of the police blogger (Richard Horton), through public sources and not by subterfuge or any invasion of privacy". All I will say on that subject is: Hmmm.
Finally, he claims that "Waugh retails uncritically the complaint of the freemasonry of bloggers, who assume that the constraints that we journalists observe ought not to apply to them".
I am not part of any freemasonry and am certainly not uncritical of the blogosphere. One of the points of mypost wasa plea for more civility, after all.I also believe that all bloggers should adhere to the laws of libel and some other constraints we hacks have to deal with. Yet I would also point out where bloggers frequently outscore the MSM - on attributiton of their sources in links - and interactivity with their readers.
Ill keep on reading the Kamm blog. But will never accept The Times actions on this one. Maybeour difference of opinion stems from this simple fact:Im a reporter (whorelies on protecting sources) and hes not.UPDATE: Graeme Archer over at ConHome wrote an excellent piece in the wake of the Times actions. Read it HERE.