Beware of source speculation
I find myself in the somewhat surreal position this morning of having read two days of newspaper reports of what is alleged to have been the story which I - along with my colleague Reeta Chakrabati - had hoped to broadcast on Friday night's Ten O'Clock News but being unable to broadcast it or to give any indication of whether any of these stories come close to what we planned to broadcast. To do otherwise would risk being in contempt of court - a serious offence. What is interesting is to see how cautious some papers are and how brave (reckless?) others have been.
There are a couple of things I am at liberty to write about - the role of the attorney general and the speculation/gossip about the source.
I see absolutely no evidence that the attorney did anything other than what all previous occupants of his post would have done, ie to respond to a request from the Metropolitan Police for an injunction. He was, as he has claimed, acting in his capacity as an independent lawyer not as a politician. The widespread disbelief which this assertion provokes probably means that the ancient post of attorney general will not survive - or at least not in this form - beyond Lord Goldsmith's tenure.
Now for the sourcing. "It must have been Downing Street" say unnamed police sources quoted in certain papers confirming the worst suspicions of the government's enemies. Pause a second and wind back. Last time we did a story of this sort - the story of "the K and the big P" - Downing Street sources were quoted as saying it must have been the police. In my experience of journalism it is rarely as simple as one side or the other handing you a story or a document on a plate.
In fact that has only happened to me once in my entire career when as a rookie political producer I called a member of a controversial Labour party policy review group who I'd never spoken to before. I fully expected that I would have to spend some time and money - in the form of the odd lunch or drink - on building a relationship before getting a proper insight to the issue. "I suppose you'd like all the documents then?" was my new source's first question on the phone. "Shall we meet for a drink" I asked. "No need" came the reply, "I'll leave them in a brown envelope for you". If only all stories were like that.
PS: I mistakenly referred to the attorney the other day as a member of Cabinet. He attends but is not a member. Sorry. You can find more information on his role .
I'm 
Comments
Wouldn't the papers be in breach of the injunction if they published the story anyway?
No matter. The problem with injunctions is they lead to all sorts of rumors about what it might be about that there is a corrosive effect on public trust even if the injunction was a perfectly proper thing to do at the time. To top it off the injunction laws haven't caught up with the advent of the 'net. People can just go to some web-site hosted outside of the country and read up without fear (yet).
"the ancient post of attorney general will not survive - or at least not in this form - beyond Lord Goldsmith's tenure."
That's quite a bold assertion Nick. I hope you're right and the post will become truly independent of government and (in particular) the PM but what makes you so sure ?
The existing setup seems to be entirely in the PM's interests, so why would he, or his successor, change it ?
Who gain's from the leak
It sounds as if you are becoming part of the story.
So Nick, who was the source?
What I'm confused about is how the police knew what the 91Èȱ¬ were going to broadcast?
Also, beyond losing a scoop, what's to stop the 91Èȱ¬ passing on the info to other news broadcasters who aren't part of the injunction?
Does the injunction apply in Scotland? As I understand it, a seperate injunction from the Court of Session in Edinburgh must be obtained in order to prevent publication north of the border - this was why "The Scotsman" was able to break the story about Paddy Ashdown's affair when the London media couldn't report it, as his lawyers did not get an injunction in Scotland. If this is the case, then why not run the story on "Reporting Scotland"?
The post of attorney general and Lord Goldsmith in particular are just two more casualties of the public's distrust of Blair and a suspicion that he's twisted institutions to his will.
Personally I suspect the story will shortly end up on LeMonde.fr or some other publication not subject to English Law.
Must be a galling day for the 91Èȱ¬, now the only news organisation who can't report the detail of this story...
Oh. Scratch my last comment - just turned on News24 to see you reporting the detail...
You mention that you expect the police investigation to go on for a few more weeks yet. There will be some howls of protest and cries of "foul" if it all comes to a head in the week before the local elections.
Why was it that you "hoped" to broadcast a story which would prejudice the justice process? On what basis can it possibly be in the public interest for you to broadcast a story which would have that effect?
The most important thing in this process is surely that if anyone has broken the law then they are held to account for it and I would have thought that anyone with any sense would avoid doing anything which could obstruct this outcome.
Or is the preening of your journalistic ego more important than the proper operation of the justice process?
I am utterly staggered at the stupidity of the media in reporting this information. It has no possible public interest and has seriusly compromised the prosecution case.
As a practising lawyer I can only say that the AG should have stepped in many months ago to stop this nonsence. I think the police must be in a state of dispair about the antics of the 91Èȱ¬ and our pathetic AG. All of you must hang your heads in shame!
Nick - you consistently misuse the term 'surreal'. Surrealism entails a fusion of two incompatible realities, a place where the streams of objective reality and the dream world flow into one mighty river of 'absolute' reality [from the French, sur = above; realite = reality].
Therefore there's absolutely nothing 'surreal' about reading newspapers' versions of what you might have been planning to report on Friday's Ten O' Clock news.
Imagine if Friday's Ten O'Clock news had been printed on the edge of everyone's cereal box a week ago, and all the cornflakes were mini Nick Robinson models, drenched in milk delivered by the former Attorney General himself, recently made redundant and enjoying the injunction-free life of an English milkman. That would be much more 'surreal' than what you are asserting!
Only 8 comments Nick? It seems your comment filter is on overdrive.
I have to agree with post 12, from Elizabeth; it seems the Press these days is more interested in the scoop than Justice.
We seem to have degenerated into a society where the media seems to believe that it is more important than the law.
91Èȱ¬ news has more in common with Hello magazine and the Sun rather than a proper news programme. You only have to look at the antics of the newscasters as they flop around like a couple of puppets waving their hands around in the required 91Èȱ¬ style to realise that the whole Corporation has lost the plot in its attempt to appear modern.
Quite pathetic.