The media's role

Here is what we know. In a democracy, there must be freedom of the press. When that freedom is curtailed, it must be for very serious reasons. It must be authorised under law. It must not be as a result of any skewed reasoning or pursuant to abuse of process.

It must be proportionate to the public policy considerations pursued. And it must not be used, whatever the rights of the parties involved, to trigger a "chill" effect on the media and, by extension, the population.

Police officers visiting media houses is not a matter we take lightly. All should be gravely concerned by this week’s developments, which, for yet another time in our country’s history, demonstrate the dangerous environment journalists work in.

It is bad enough that the purported leader of the free world, Donald Trump, daily undermines and imperils the safety of his country’s media corps. Now it seems we have a situation locally in which there is little restraint or contemplation of the long-term effects of taking extreme action in relation to news organisations that are given special protections, or at least are supposed to be given special protections, under the law.

For sure, media houses must be subject to law, but no one in a democracy with respect and understanding for the role and function of journalism can take comfort in heavy-handed, disingenuous attempts to out sources.

Official action in relation to the leak of sensitive matters is not unexpected, but gratuitous activity that only serves to create a chill effect on the media as a whole – that is, the use of state resources to interfere with constitutional rights. We cannot condone such acts. The Police Complaints Authority, the only independent watchdog, must probe this matter.

A basic premise of journalism is that sources must be protected. If this cannot be guaranteed, then no one would ever provide the kind of tips that lead to investigations, the very investigations that police, ironically, need done in order to enforce law and order.

Would someone call the police hotline to give information on a murder in their neighbourhood if, as soon as they called, their identity could be ascertained and revealed?

There are laws and precedent in relation to confidentiality that have often limited journalistic freedoms. For such laws to be invoked, the grounds for doing so must be clear and persuasive, the evidence, causal or otherwise, compelling. What is more, such a matter has to be properly approved by a judicial officer.

Yet assuming all of these standards can be met, it must be asked: what use is it to seek to silence outsiders when one’s own house might not be in order?

With great power always comes great responsibility, yes. But that works not only in relation to the media, but also those in charge of exercising police powers.