Along with several politicians, a couple of journalists were also included in this round-up, including staff at both Newshub and Newsroom. The action might be nothing more than a fishing expedition - we're a long, long way away from reporters standing in the dock on contempt charges - but if Mr Peters is expecting news people to give up their sources, he's absolutely dreaming.
As much as it is a cliche, it's also totally true - journos never, ever reveal their sources. In cases all over the world, reporters and editors have been threatened and have even gone to jail to protect their source of information. Betraying that kind of confidence is never acceptable.
Besides, if you give up the people who tell you things, nobody is ever going to trust you again. You just can't be a journalist any more, if you don't hold that kind of base line of integrity. You give up your source, and you might avoid something unpleasant, but you're not a journo anymore. No newsroom is ever going to hire you, none of your colleagues are ever going to share anything with you again, and you're done.
On the other hand, there is a lot to be gained if you stick by your source. Yeah, you might suffer some unfortunate short-term effects, but you gain a reputation as someone who can be trusted, who won't dob you in if things get a bit sticky, and you'll get the first call from any future whistle-blowers who are looking for a trustworthy reporter.
Journalism is an industry that is built almost entirely on reputations, and they can be destroyed in an instant - just ask poor old Ben Mack, who vapourised his the instant he sent his opinion piece to the Washington Post last week - but they can also be steadily built up over years of grinding work, and are certainly helped if you show some integrity, and just a bit of goddamn backbone.
You also get the undying respect of your peers, which is nice. We could all do with a bit of that.
The only time it is acceptable to reveal a source is if that source gives their express permission, and is happy and willing to face the consequences. This doesn't happen very often, but it does happen, and there is no black mark on the journo's reputation.
Maybe, one day far down the line, when everybody involved is dead or retired or just don't give a fuck anymore, the truth will all come out. Some book or long-form article will dig back into the past, and might be able to find out who said what to whom. When it becomes history, when there is nobody left to protect or blame, the truth will become clear.
It usually does.
- Margaret Tempest
Posts
