Sugar Appeal
Regular readers of this blog will know about the dispute between Steven Sugar and the 91Èȱ¬, over whether Mr Sugar should be allowed to see an internal report on the 91Èȱ¬'s Middle East reporting which has become known as the 'Balen report'.
In the latest instalment of what has become a complex legal battle, the Appeal Court has today backed the 91Èȱ¬ and rejected Mr Sugar's latest challenge.
It's important to note that this decision is not about the contents of the report itself. Instead it's about the legal issue as to whether the Information Tribunal has the power to overrule the Information Commissioner when the latter has decided that an information request to the 91Èȱ¬ is outside the scope of the FOI Act because it's about information held for the purposes of journalism. The Appeal Court has agreed with the High Court and the 91Èȱ¬ that the Tribunal did not have this power.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
The notion that the Balen Report contains information 'held for the purposes of journalism' is b*ll*cks! The 91Èȱ¬ hasn't been meeting with secret sources to research investigative journalism . It's not about Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein getting all cosy with Deep Throat.
I - as an enforced licence tax payer - paid for that damned report, and I damn well want to see it.
Martin,
The 91Èȱ¬ can hide behind whatever legal device it wishes to, however it cannot hide from the central truth that the more you (91Èȱ¬) spend licence fee money on stopping the release of this report the stench of something wrong will continue.
As Max Sceptic rightly points out your argument is rubbish, how the 91Èȱ¬ dares to have a blog called 'Open Secrets' when it refuses to be open itself beggars belief.
I personaly support a licence fee, however, the 91Èȱ¬ must be held accountable when it's reporting is found to be open to accusations of bias, after all what was the reason for getting Mr Balen to perform a review if you do not publish the findings?.
Perhaps the 91Èȱ¬ should take another look at it's own survey in which only 7% of participants felt that they can trust the 91Èȱ¬.
Examples of bias which are known are the reporting styles of most of your Middle East reporters with obvious examples such as Barbera Plett and her infamous crying over the death of Arafat.
I imagine that the report advised the 91Èȱ¬ to strive for a more balanced approach in it's Middle East reporting, however, I doubt very much that it shows a totally clear bias against the Israelis, however by not releasing this report you are allowing the stench of bias to fester and grow.
A quick trawl on the internet brings up over 2 million hits regarding 91Èȱ¬ bias, so it is clear that you have a huge problem with your reputation, in fact I found sites dedicated to 'exposing bias at the 91Èȱ¬'!.
Indeed on one site it lists all the 91Èȱ¬ employees who have worked for Labour, the number of these employees is amazing, so for you to not to relase the Balen report seems to reinforce the perception of bias which if you ignore could be the issue that loses the 91Èȱ¬ it's licence fee as more and more people feel that you are out of touch and untrustworthy.
As I've mentioned on here elsewhere before...
If this legal battle was just about clarifying a technical legal issue, and not about withholding the report (which is something the 91Èȱ¬ have stressed in the past), now that the legal technicality has been clarified, will the 91Èȱ¬ choose to release the report anyway?
Call me an old cynic, but I doubt it very much. Always happy to be proved wrong though.
I don't think that "information held for the purposes of journalism" should be outside the FOI. Obviously sources need to be protected, but many other things should not be kept secret.
For example, if the 91Èȱ¬ had an internal policy of avoiding certain topics or terms I think that is something the public should know.