Shooting the messenger

But this is not the point. What matters is our acceptance that a balancing act was required, even if we disagree with the judgment of the balancer.

I’m not trying to bury Seven, or to praise the network, either. My point is simply that while we are right to feel angry about the unauthorised disclosure of private medical records, we need to direct our anger appropriately. Seven didn’t steal the medical records, or negligently allow them to be pinched. If they were ignorant of the fact they had been stolen (a very key if), then the network had a very real moral dilemma on its hands. One, it seems worth mentioning, that it and other news organisations may face again.

Journalists are often in receipt of unauthorised information, the broadcast of which is undoubtedly in the public interest. Deep Throat wasn’t authorised to guide Woodward and Bernstein to the Watergate scandal ,and Alan Kessing’s confidential report on security breaches at Sydney airport - which eventually led to a $200 million update of airport security - wasn’t supposed to find its way into the press, either.

What happens when a journalist is leaked the records of a candidate for high office who has been diagnosed with a fatal cancer he had failed to disclose to the public? Or when the psychiatric records of a convicted pedophile due for imminent release - showing several treating doctors deeming him incurable and likely to re-offend - fall off the back of a truck near a newsroom?

Will we all be screaming about the confidentiality of medical records, unauthorised disclosure and privacy rights then? Will we shoot the messenger?

Or will we recognise the fine and fuzzy line the news media tread every day to keep their profits healthy, yes, but also to ensure their responsibility to inform the public is met.