Discussion
I have jumped off the 'shot Brazilian' thread with this because I think there is a wider issue about 'leaks' that appear to come from within what should be a secure investiagtive team. We also see leaks from within Whitehall, inside corporate bodies (remember Gate Gormet last week and before that Fitness First).
My concern is that peole are prepared to leak information which can be harmful: e.g. hurtful to the families (The shot Brazilian Mendez family knew little of tis until the UK press announced it). If they are prepared to do it for the cash the NOW will pay, what does that say about their integrity and trustworthiness to do the day job with integrity?
I can see, that in certain circumstances (e.g. stuff is being covered up, or destroyed or lies are being told which are unlikely to be found out) there is a public interest. The whistle blowers legislation covers that. However, often it is just fuel for the media fires and acsh in the pocket of the camp spy. Any inaccuracies of these 'sourceless' leaks are never put right later and they do do damage to reputations and perceptions of events.
Not being one to defend celebrities, but they have confidentiality contracts with their staff which are just ignored once theyleave the employment (and often before). There cannot be any real public interest (beyond HEAT magazine and the giggling women in hairdressers)in knowing what arguments the Beckhams had or what she said about X.
I know the spin doctors inside every organisation often play the 'leaks' game but whatever happened to employee loyalty? Do they forget who pays their mortgage?
My concern is that peole are prepared to leak information which can be harmful: e.g. hurtful to the families (The shot Brazilian Mendez family knew little of tis until the UK press announced it). If they are prepared to do it for the cash the NOW will pay, what does that say about their integrity and trustworthiness to do the day job with integrity?
I can see, that in certain circumstances (e.g. stuff is being covered up, or destroyed or lies are being told which are unlikely to be found out) there is a public interest. The whistle blowers legislation covers that. However, often it is just fuel for the media fires and acsh in the pocket of the camp spy. Any inaccuracies of these 'sourceless' leaks are never put right later and they do do damage to reputations and perceptions of events.
Not being one to defend celebrities, but they have confidentiality contracts with their staff which are just ignored once theyleave the employment (and often before). There cannot be any real public interest (beyond HEAT magazine and the giggling women in hairdressers)in knowing what arguments the Beckhams had or what she said about X.
I know the spin doctors inside every organisation often play the 'leaks' game but whatever happened to employee loyalty? Do they forget who pays their mortgage?
I dont believe that many leaks are genuine leaks anyway, more than likely just an officially sanctioned unnofficial release of information to help loosen up the media and public to soften the blow when the information is officially released. (with apologies to the writers of 'Yes Prime Minister' 
)
)Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff