Is Your Source Ever Really Safe?

Abstract

Doctor David Kelly told the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee that one lesson he had learned was never to talk to journalists. But the political violence of the battle between the Government and the BBC forced Kelly to surrender the confidentiality he had hoped for when doing so. The actions and words of journalists, civil servants and politicians destroyed the self-esteem of one of the world's foremost experts on weapons of mass destruction.

A basic principle in law has been in the background to this affair, writes Crook. Scribbled in a Downing Street minute when politicians and civil servants scrambled to deal with the implications of Dr Kelly's death was the expression "duty of care". Had Government properly executed its duty of care to Dr Kelly? Had journalism fulfilled its duty of care to the scientist who had been prepared to speak out and whistle-blow on the misuse of intelligence? Again with the benefit of hindsight, could the practice of journalism have done more to protect Dr Kelly? Is confidentiality so absolute an obligation that journalists should not surrender that confidentiality to their editors and proprietors? And does confidentiality extend beyond the grave? Media academic Crooks on the ethical questions of the affair on which the Hutton Inquiry will soon report.