retired_nela

Well, I would have said ignorant and pointless if it were where I think it was aimed, but I was trying to give benefit of the doubt.

retired_elcrabtree

Obviously a case of the journalist quoting "Freedom of information" everytime they can't get what they want.

Shame they forgot about how courts have the power to name or not name certain suspects, defamation and all that...

retired_kpr

Well, that sounds quite annoying. I suppose it's better that they have that sort of attitude than not, though. They sort of need to be annoying and able to try anything to get what they want, that's the whole point of journalism. Press would be a bit crap otherwise.

retired_google

Because you wouldn't say why it had been changed, just hiding behind the "blah, blah, security risk, blah, blah."

Clearly part of the Bush way of thinking. :thdn:

retired_princess160

Why would it be in the public interest to publish the name anyway?

What is the difference for the average reader between 'a person' or '<name you've never heard of>'.

In the case of paediatricians it's different of course, public stonings are acceptable iirc.

retired_nela

Because you wouldn't say why it had been changed, just hiding behind the "blah, blah, security risk, blah, blah."

Clearly part of the Bush way of thinking. :thdn: </BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it was a bit Bush-ish, because I was fumbling my way through the whole thing! I'm not used to this sort of call, and wasn't really sure how much I could say.

TBF, I do understand the journalist's position - they want to write a good story, and if it looks like something is being hidden, it must be a good story!

The thing is, information is not concealed lightly, and only happens after lengthy debate or with very clear justification for that. Most journalists accept that, but this one seemed intent on tricking information out of me, which I found irritating.

retired_google

Because you wouldn't say why it had been changed, just hiding behind the "blah, blah, security risk, blah, blah."

Clearly part of the Bush way of thinking. :thdn: </BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it was a bit Bush-ish, because I was fumbling my way through the whole thing! I'm not used to this sort of call, and wasn't really sure how much I could say.

TBF, I do understand the journalist's position - they want to write a good story, and if it looks like something is being hidden, it must be a good story!

The thing is, information is not concealed lightly, and only happens after lengthy debate or with very clear justification for that. Most journalists accept that, but this one seemed intent on tricking information out of me, which I found irritating. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the journalist ofc.

I know we've regularly sued (and won) when the city government here has tried to conceal financial settlements with departing employees, even though concealment of the terms was usually part of the deal.

retired_nela

Oh, they know all too well that courts have that power, and they are less than happy with it - though, as I said, most are pretty good about it.

Defamation isn't the issue really. Reporting that a person is charged, or even the allegations made against them, isn't defamation. Reporting of names is only really prevented where:

- It could allow victims of sex attacks to be identified (eg. in an incest case)
- The offender is young (people under 18 always have their names removed, people under 23 often do)
- There is a security risk, eg. because the person is an informant, is a target for vigilantes, is connected to another protected person, etc.

retired_nela

Being paid out with taxpayer dollars, I take it? That's certainly in the public interest, and though I'm not sure about having information revealed contrary to settlements, there's a legitimate argument in the public interest there.

I'm not criticising journalists in general at all (badly worded title in retrospect, though I did try to aim my complaint specifically in the post), but this is quite a different case to what you described.

retired_google

Being paid out with taxpayer dollars, I take it? That's certainly in the public interest, and though I'm not sure about having information revealed contrary to settlements, there's a legitimate argument in the public interest there.

I'm not criticising journalists in general at all (badly worded title in retrospect, though I did try to aim my complaint specifically in the post), but this is quite a different case to what you described. </BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but I'm just saying there are times when an order can be overturned in the public interest.

Mostly I just wanted to share an experience on this side.

It could have just been that journalist having a bad day from dealing with a mouth-breathing reader. We got a letter the other day from a reader complaining about our "liberal bias" because of a headling QUOTING THE US AIR FORCE that their flying nuclear-armed weapons from the Dakotas to Louisana was a major cockup.