Nightjack: the cloak of anonymity and the mankini of hypocrisy
So a Times journalist works out the identity of Orwell award winning blogger, Nightjack. Nightjack, a police officer and wanting to maintain his anonymity, takes it to the courts, loses, and is outed by The Times who duly crow…
Mr Justice Eady… , who is known for establishing case law with his judgments on privacy, has struck a blow in favour of openness, ruling that blogging is “essentially a public rather than a private activity”.
Bloggers, ‘can no longer be sure that their identity can be kept secret’, it seems. I was wondering if there were any other enterprises which were ‘essentially a public rather than a private activity’. And then it hit me – of course there are – politics and journalism.
I mean, what about these Times journalists relying on anonymous ’sources’ for stories about Labour party donors, tax powers in Scotland, MPs’ expenses, and Sir Alan Sugar’s new job?
And these Times journalists relying on anonymous ‘insiders’ for stories about Peter Mandelson, the resignation of Lord Carter, and the latest cabinet reshuffle.
Or these Times journalists relying on anonymous ‘friends’ for stories about Alistair Darling, James Purnell, and even the Prime Minister.
Now, I don’t know about you but I have the nagging suspicion that something isn’t quite right here. Would I be wrong in thinking that anonymous sources, insiders and friends are conducting the business of democracy in the media with the willing collusion of journalists? If nothing else, it’s in direct contravention of the ‘different type of politics’ promised to us by Gordon Brown – a politics promising a ‘more open and honest dialogue‘.
It would seem to me that some kind of public interest challenge in the courts is in order. Imagine the story in The Times…
Thousands of ’sources’, ‘insiders’ and ‘friends’ churn out opinions daily — secure in the protection afforded to them by the cloak of anonymity lent to them by obsequious journalists.
From today, however, they can no longer be sure that their identity can be kept secret, after a landmark ruling by Mr Justice Eady.
The judge, who is known for establishing case law with his judgments on privacy, has struck a blow in favour of openness, ruling that democracy is “essentially a public rather than a private activity”.
What could be more in the public interest than that? It’s should certainly interest the public more than the identity of a blogger who’s been hunted down for little more reason than to satisfy the personal curiosity and vanity – sorry, deduction and detective work – of a journalist who clearly had nothing better to do.
Of course it would mean that many journalists’ sources would dry up and they’d have to get off their arses and do some proper reporting instead of trading in gossip and acting as proxies and useful idiots in Westminster turf wars. But there’s probably a downside as well.
Who’s for setting up a legal fund?
(Anton Vowl’s thinking along the same lines…)
Update 17 June: Nightjack writes about being outed by The Times in The Times. (Not sure what the hell that’s all about, but anyway…)
Then one morning I heard a rumour that The Times had sent a photographer to my home. Later in the afternoon came the inevitable phone calls from The Times, first to me and then to Lancashire Constabulary asking for confirmation that I was the author of the NightJack blog. That was easily the worst afternoon of my life. I knew that it was serious and quite rightly my employers have investigated it as a matter of misconduct. With that under way, I went to court to stop The Times from publishing my name, my photograph or any personal details about my home and my family. Over the years, I have dealt with some unpleasant characters. I know that some of them have made determined but unsuccessful efforts to find me and I believe that some of them are still looking. I didn’t want their task made easier. I also wanted to provide some breathing space for my employers so that they could try to limit the damage that my exposure will do to their deserved reputation as one of the best police forces in the country. In the event, I failed at court as it was decided that the public right to know about me outweighed any claim to personal privacy.
‘Over the years, I have dealt with some unpleasant characters.’ Not least, I’ll wager, journalists working for The Times newspaper.
Posted on June 16th, 2009 at 4:09pm under Culture, media and sport, UK politics
| Related posts... • In or out? • Friends like these • The Independent: ‘Time’ bows to pressure to reveal source of CIA story |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 37 Comments |
Perhaps what’s needed is a ‘journalist’ (aka another blogger) to publish on behalf of the anonymous one, who can then claim journalistic privilege to protect their sources.
Nightjack was such a fabulous blog; in fact one of the few coppers’ blogs out there that wasn’t obviously right wing. And it was very well written too.
So many thanks to the Times; they not only managed to silence Nightjack, they’re probably also responsible for ruining his career, his life and possible book deals he might have had. Why?
For all those reasons.
I’m poor at the mo but always willing to chip in for a good cause.
I suspect, and hope, that the main thing the Times will achieve here is to sully their own reputation, sullied though it already is. They must know very well, as a newspaper of two centuries’ standing, that there are very good reasons why any source of information may wish to remain secret and that the degree of public interest in revealing hidden identities needs to be very high.
What’s it going to be now then? Out-a-Blogger Week? There are blogs (and I am thinking of some very specific examples) which have gone out of their way to not reveal the identities of bloggers with whom their relations are exceedingly poor: because people understand that it’s not necessary, it shouldn’t be done and all it does is invite a tit-fot-tat war. Now we have the Times (and it’s them I blame, to be honest, not Eady) deciding they don’t have to worry about the consequences as long as they get their story. It’s prurient and petty and for that matter, it’s damaging to good journalism.
Also, that newspaper group has form.
The fact that someone has chosen to conceal their identity does not oblige anyone else to preserve their secrecy unless they have explicitly promised to do so (or if required to do so by the law as with rape victims or child protection cases). In the case of anonymous sources and the newspapers, the sources did obtain the prior agreement of the paper not to reveal their identity to anyone else as a condition of their speaking to its reporter. The newspapers consented to the arrangement and must keep their promise.
Does my wearing a mask in public legally oblige everyone else to keep my identity secret? The judge has ruled it does not.
I suppose a blogger could try to get around this absence of a general legal protection by putting a statement on his web site to the effect that by reading his work you’ve entered into an agreement to preserve his anonymity (a kind of shrink wrapped license). This wouldn’t stop someone who’d merely heard from others about a blogger from discovering his identity and publishing it in the same way that if I discover the true name of a journalist’s anonymous source I’ve got no obligation to keep it secret.
Well, yes you have: it’s an ethical obligation and you need to have a pretty good reason to override it.
Nor is this a question of keeping somebody’s secret for them: it’s a question of going out of one’s way to discover one’s secret and then broadcasting it. Your comparisons aren’t really valid.
If you’re News Int’l bloggers are the enemy by definition. Imagine you’re operating a business model that’s fifty years old in its current form, and you’re watching your circulation slide by degrees as the old folk pop their clogs and wondering how long before the advertisers cop to this and the gravy train congeals.
And here are all these bastards who don’t even get paid for it, and they get quoted, IN PUBLIC – hundreds of them. I mean, you know they’re not going to take over the media, but News Int’l have spent twenty years convincing themselves that there’s going to be a Moslem majority in Europe by next Tuesday, so what do you expect them to think.
“Let’s take one with us.”
You’ll have to do more work to show that everyone has an obligation to preserve the anonymity of anyone else. If you can prove it you should get yourself over to the legal offices of this chap’s barrister and help with the appeal.
As for ‘going out of one’s way’ – what has the degree of effort I put into determining someone’s true identity to do with whether it is right? I might recognise someone in disguise instantly from their distinctive gait or their speech mannerisms (or in print, because of their writing style, or the knowledge displayed, or the attitudes and prejudices expressed). If I then told only a couple of friends in private would it be all right? I can breach someone’s anonymity a little bit but not too much? My clique can learn the truth but not the public? How do I determine who has a right to know? Presumably I didn’t have the right in the first place but now that I do a few others can be told?
Fellow traveller, I can’t *prove* that people shouldn’t deliberately fuck over other folks’ lives when there’s no good reason to do so. But I still hold it to be true.
I can only agree with Larry Teabag. And I’d like to ask the question again: why on Earth did they do it? They’ve probably destroyed a life. If Nightjack’s lucky, he might a get a book deal or a few TV appearances out of it. But his day job ist most probably gone, thanks to the Times. For no reason whatsoever. In fact, I think it’s one of those “Bloggers Unite!” cases, “Boycott the Times” and whatnot, if only it weren’t so futile.
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/06/patrick-foster-of-times.html
Oh, fabulous, Old Holborn! Well done!
“The difference between a welfare state and totalitarianism is a matter of time”.
You silly little boy.
[...] Yoghurt is plotting revenge on journalistic [...]
The Times comes out of this badly – and they’ve just blown a hole in any pseudonymous writers they use.
I feel sorry for NightJack.
The one group I have not seen mentioned are the police. If he was in breach of contract, then they had to discipline, and it is a positive note that he had a written warning where Christopher Glamorganshire was sacked.
I haven’t got my head round Justice Eady’s actions yet.
Time for statutory protection of Freedom of Speech to the US Level. Athough that would not prevent NJ being in breach of contract / confidentiality.
[...] Justin McKeating makes a very good point with regard to The Times’ victory today: that of anonymous sources for journalists. They may not be bloggers, but you can see where Justin’s coming from – the principle is very similar (and apologies for copying a large chunk of his text here, but it helps place his argument in context: Would I be wrong in thinking that anonymous sources, insiders and friends are conducting the business of democracy in the media with the willing collusion of journalists? If nothing else, it’s in direct contravention of the ‘different type of politics’ promised to us by Gordon Brown – a politics promising a ‘more open and honest dialogue‘. It would seem to me that some kind of public interest challenge in the courts is in order. Imagine the story in The Times… Thousands of ’sources’, ‘insiders’ and ‘friends’ churn out opinions daily — secure in the protection afforded to them by the cloak of anonymity lent to them by obsequious journalists. From today, however, they can no longer be sure that their identity can be kept secret, after a landmark ruling by Mr Justice Eady. The judge, who is known for establishing case law with his judgments on privacy, has struck a blow in favour of openness, ruling that democracy is “essentially a public rather than a private activity”. What could be more in the public interest than that? [...]
Blogging is a public matter, and yet ‘unattributable briefings’ are all part of the great and glorious dance. No siree, can’t name names there, it would be against the rules of the Club, and the public, well they just don’t understand don’t'cha’kno.
[...] on this from 853, Random Acts Of Reality, Chicken Yoghurt, and Anton [...]
[...] updates: Justin has some very interesting thoughts on the implications for this ruling here. tweetmeme_url = 'http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4855';tweetmeme_source = [...]
As a journalist, I’m truly disgusted at The Times and its blatant hypocrisy. Going to Eady to name NightJack, when Eady is so keen to protect the privacy of celebs, beggars belief.
They’ve gained nothing newswise and damaged an officer’s career. In addition, they’ve put every whistleblower on notice pointing out “you’ll be named”.
[...] your own. (UPDATE: Here’s some thoughts from ambulance blog guy Tom Reynolds on Night Jack, Chicken Yoghurt, and Paperhouse. Meanwhile, it turns out (thanks to Old Holborn) that Patrick Foster came from [...]
The Times doesn’t work for us they work for the bringing about of the New World Order. The Orwell Trust is run by Common Purpose people (see cpexposed.com), they used the blogger award to find out who are the bloggers and who reads them, then they will start closing them down. We have a short time to save our country from totalitarism. We can stop it but we need to act NOW. Go to the British Constitution Group http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/ to find out what to do.
[...] Chicken Yoghurt – mankini of hypocrisy (an excellent post) [...]
I think there is a big fuss here being created over nothing. And yet, when the Guardian lost out in its battle to expose judges who have breached the rules and desired to remain anonymous there has hardly been a peep in the blogosphere. Similarly, when a Chief Constable claims he is above the law there has been silence.
Why is it that some cannot see the wood for the trees?
I’ve been mulling over a legal fund for a bloggers for a while now too. There is the Electronic Freedom Foundation (which I encourage people to join), but that’s obviously US-focused. If you ever want to get anything off the ground let me know, and count me in.
[...] Suw Charman-Anderson, en veteran på den britiske bloggescenen, tvitrer: “Det virker som The Times synes at det er en fin sport å oute bloggere, men de beskytter sine egne kilder når det er i deres interesse å gjøre det.” Justin McKeating, som skriver den populære politiske bloggen Chicken Yoghurt, har en lengre argumentasjon i samme gate her. [...]
[...] 7: Fellow public service blogger and ambulance driver Tom Reynolds gives his views on the case. Chicken Yoghurt gives his on the media’s use of anonymous sources. David MacLean responds: “Of course journalists rely on anonymous sources, but if a rival [...]
If only there was some kind of law, perhaps section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, that makes it illegal to elicit information about a police officer, none of this could have happened.
I also expect that Justice Eady’s personal details will be published in the interests of an open justice system… we have a right to know what his personal interests are, in case they mean he would have a conflict of interests when presiding over cases…
[...] Those who make comparisons between anonymous bloggers and anonymous journalistic sources. Eg. Sara McConnell and Justin McKeating. [...]
Journalists’ sources are always sacrosanct – to them. Other journalists’ sources are not sacrosanct in the slightest, and there has been reams and reams of copy written over the years either identifying or attempting to identify the sources of big stories. Look at the Telegraph’s coverage of the MPs’ expenses scandal – other newspapers have done their best to flush out the source.
[...] anonyme Blogger mit anonymen Quellen für Journalisten vergleichen, wie Sara McConnell und Justin McKeating. andere Kritik am Vorgehen der Times in diesem Fall äußern, z.B. Hopi Sen, ehemaliger anonymer [...]
[...] Nightjack: the cloak of anonymity and the mankini of hypocrisy … [...]
[...] – anonyme Blogger mit anonymen Quellen für Journalisten vergleichen, wie Sara McConnell und Justin McKeating. [...]
[...] anyone who’s been following the story about the shameful exposure by the Times of the blogger NightJack will be aware, anonymous bloggers run the risk of having [...]
[...] Mereka yang membuat perbandingan antara bloger anonim dan sumber jurnalis anonim. Contoh Sara McConnell dan Justin McKeating. [...]