NightJack: rights and wrongs

I have had quite a few emails and comments about NightJack and The Times story revealing his identity. So I thought I would give a brief reply.

I'll start with this. I have been impressed by the things people have said. I am reading all the correspondence carefully and I will think about what you have had to say. I am very grateful for the time you took to let me know what you think.

Here's my view.

Writing a blog is a form of publishing. There is no distinction, really, between a blog and, say, a published volume of diaries.

And when someone publishes then they might reasonably expect that others might take an interest in their identity. This is especially so when they allow their work to go forward for a major prize.

When a public servant decides to reveal the confidences of their colleagues and details of their work, especially on police cases, then their identity becomes a legitimate matter of interest. And other journalists might reasonably investigate the matter.

What, say, if it turned out that NightJack wasn't actually a detective at all? Or that he was Sir Ian Blair? Are we really saying that his identity isn't a public matter?

Yes, it is true that journalists may try and keep their sources secret. But not only is being a source rather different from publishing yourself, other journalists frequently speculate on the identity of sources. Or investigate the matter. Ask Deep Throat.

In fact, I have to confess to surprise at the attitude of some other bloggers. Most of the time, we promote the fearless revelation of truth and expose hypocrisy.

I am surprised at the idea that bloggers might want privacy law expanded.

Surely, just because someone is part of the blogging club it doesn't make them immune.

Anyway, that, as I say, is my view. I look forward to hearing back from you.