Here’s the Guardian’s “live blog” on the story.
Now, no-one’s advocating breaking the law – if any law has been broken, but it does raise the question of whether you care how you get to read or hear a story, just the story itself.
The expenses scandal in this country was a story broken and owned by the Daily Telegraph and domintaed the news agenda for some time. I’m not suggesting for a second that anything illegal happened to obtain the story but everyone – including the MPs themselves – agree it was in the “public interest” and i’ve seen next to no chatter about the ethics of getting the story.
But if it’s a story you don’t like – or disagree with – are you more likely to criticise or question how it was obtained. ?
And with new media battling to get stories on first, is there more pressure to cut corners to get a story out there ?
Again, no impugning here, but celebrity website TMZ legitimately broke the Michael Jackson story and got a world exclusive. Does anybody care how they got it ?
If money changes hands, or something is passed on , or someone blows the whistle, is it legitimate if the end result is good ?