Not another political revelation! - 05 September 2010

Last week William Hague has been the the focus of the media spotlight and its speculation about what he has or has not done. Hague, like many before him in the public spotlight has suffered from having a history that is inconsistent with their office, whichever politcal background, But who is judging, Lots of individuals but almost certainly not you or I who are the public......... 

How do we decide what should be in the published in the public interest and what constitutes a public interest story? Interestingly I bet we all have a rough idea of what a public interest story is. But strangely the people who decide to publish or broadcast stories on behalf of you and I have not been elected by us nor are they neccesarily qualified to judge what should be published. Almost invariably newspaper and TV editors are commercial beasts who only answer to "watchdogs" if they step out of line or to their commercial masters if they have not sold enough papers. When Rupert Murdoch bought the Washington Post 18 months ago, the argument against from long standing staff was about maintaining the quality of the reseach and editorial (their argument was evetually overcome with money of course).

If the spotlight was turned 180 degrees and shone on editors personal lives what would we find. After all, they hold so much absolute authority that they should be at least as clean as the people they investigate. Has this question ever been asked? Strangely, looking through Google, there seems to be very little.