Diplomatic Leak - ambassador to US about Trump

[garnett]

None of those questions are relevant. .

Completely agree with the rest of your post. My question was for those who appeared to be blaming the ambassador for a lack of discretion while seemingly supportive of Trump.

Other things might be in the public interest. This leak, which has cost a UK Ambassador his job gets a bit close to a great area. Diplomatic communications ought to be protected, they're not in themselves political but are the communications of a civil servant expressing quite frank opinions and providing useful information. This isn't some evidence of corruption or wrongdoing leaked by a whistleblower, it is interesting to read the views but they're not really (IMHO) in the public interests. UK ambassador has sane assessment of trump... well no ****, you'd probably find plenty of other ambassadors; European, Australian, Canadian, NZ have very similar opinions too.

I absolutely agree. You make a good point about public interest (which most commentators seem to treat almost like a given - that publishing this material *is* in the public interest.)

Another consideration is where should protection of the media kick in? The Mail and Oakeshott are both heavily involved actors in Brexit whose interests have been significantly furthered by their scoop. Is it right that they should be awarded some sort of immunity?

 

[dowie]

Another consideration is where should protection of the media kick in? The Mail and Oakeshott are both heavily involved actors in Brexit whose interests have been significantly furthered by their scoop. Is it right that they should be awarded some sort of immunity?

Honest I’m not sure. I think when some of this possibly falls into a grey area the government is inclined to not take action with regards to the press. Having a free press is pretty fundamental to a liberal democracy. I mean I guess if some newspaper was to say publish some nuclear secrets or perhaps the names of some MI6 agents etc... then that sort of thing perhaps does cross a line but other stuff might not be so clear cut to the point where there can be any general policy/rule. I mean for example I’d assume that private royal communications with say the government wouldn’t be in the public interest etc... but Prince Charles’ spider letters to ministers were sort of as he was becoming rather political, something he’s not really supposed to be.

I guess also the press shouldn’t be in a position where there is a big risk of fines/prosecutions/imprisonment (thus potentially silencing then) if they publish something they believe is in the public interests even though it could lead to prison for the leaker if caught.