Update: She was acquitted.
Piaras Kelly mentioned the Naomi McElroy story that was in the Sunday Times. Basically she was done for writing fake prescriptions to aid in some story she was investigating. Piaras suggested her work was like those who tested the security of flights after the Sept 11th terrorist attacks:
Who can forget the number of weapons sneaked onto flights in the wake of 9/11 in a bid to highlight poor airport security
I replied in the comments but I think his commenting system dislikes me as only half my comments ever seem to get through. This is my view:
The weapons were fake, like her prescriptons but the big deal is she got drugs from these prescriptions. Would you rob a bank to prove their security was weak?
You can highlight weaknesses in most systems by adhering to the law, it just takes more work. If she wants to break the law to highlight something then she must pay the price and she knew the price before she did this. Her editor should also be found complicit. Journalists are not above the law just because they are trying to improve the system/get more readers.Is this lazy journalism?
Sarah mentioned on the Newstalk show today that blogs and bloggers don’t forgive lazy journalism. I guess this blogger doesn’t forgive Geraldo style lazy investigative journalism either.
Just made a couple of changes to my commenting system. I’ve moved my blacklist words to moderation, I think that’s causing the problem. I’ve been hit by spam a lot recently.
Just to note I also said “Rather than take journalists to court, I think that Ireland will be a far better place when the press council is finally established. That way the media can be policed to ensure that they donâ€™t overstep the mark and pursue their own agenda when running undercover stories.”
i would just point out that the drugs purchased were handed straight to the gardai. personally think it’s an attack on press freedom to take her to court.
[Might as well reply here â€¦] She technical broke the law in the public interest. Apparently, she did not put her life, or other peopleâ€™s, lives in danger. Apparently, she did not put anybodyâ€™s good name in dispute. Etc etc etc
The â€œspirit of the lawâ€? is something Iâ€™ve read about judges talking about. Guess what? The spirit of the law wasnâ€™t intended for prosecuting those who are only highlighting matters of public interest. The intent was not malicious.
If anything, part of this smacks of â€œand if we could, weâ€™d also be prosecuting you for highlighting this in the first placeâ€?.
Well, as it turns out she didn’t break the law at all, technically or otherwise. Her journalism doesn’t seem to have been as lazy as Dulley suggested. But of course, from what he posted it seems he didn’t read the original article, or the Sunday Times piece, either. Now that is lazy – giving bloggers a bad name. Ha!