S.Atlantic : APPARENT LEAKED DOCUMENT LEADS TO ARREST OF ST HELENA NEWSPAPERMAN
Submitted by SARTMA.com (Juanita Brock) 08.10.2009 (Article Archived on 22.10.2009)
In a justified operation the St Helena Police have done what is comparable to going after a fly with a 0.22 rifle.
APPARENT LEAKED DOCUMENT LEADS TO ARREST OF ST HELENA NEWSPAPERMAN
An Editorial by J. Brock (SARTMA)
In a justified operation the St Helena Police have done what is comparable to going after a fly with a 0.22 rifle. Instead of obliterating the fly they managed to wound press freedom on St Helena - a small Island in the South Atlantic Ocean.
In an article which began “Yesterday, a release of a copy of the Accounts for Solomon and Company was made available to Saint FM. They disclosed that turnover for Solomon’s and Company, including subsidiaries, was almost....” Mr Mike Olsson of the St Helena Independent exposed the fact that he was in possession of information which belonged to Solomon’s prior to its being made available to the public. For this breach of confidentiality Mr Olsson was arrested and the offices of Saint-FM raided by St Helena Police.
In larger societies the practice is called “leaking information to the media” but on St Helena it mounts to theft of information that was commercial in confidence at the time it was published. It is the smallness of the society that makes this blow to press freedom so devastating. For this reason in other remote territories in the South Atlantic such breaches of confidentiality are dealt with in a more subtle way.
Subtle, yes but it hits target without shrapnel wounds for press freedom. I would have expected Solomon’s to call me – undoubtedly irately – to request an apology and/or an explanation to be published in the next issue. If this doesn’t work, the advertising can be withdrawn – and in a small place it is on target and can hit like a ton of bricks. In extreme circumstances, raid and arrest should be the last measure – not the first.
I have often said that along with press freedom there is an element of press responsibility. My question to the entity presenting the information is “Why are you giving me this?” There are times when sensitive information is obtained that it is done so to get the newspaper into trouble. Other times it is a genuine attempt to set an important matter right. In a small place the newspaper person usually knows the individual and can with ease discern motives.
But add deadlines and distractions to the formula and get disaster. With all the best intentions in the world mistakes filter through and judgement can be marred. It’s easily done but is no excuse when it happens. The damage is done now. Saint-FM can quite rightly say what authorities did was a blow to press freedom. But what is unclear at the moment is the underlying factor that caused an unfortunate choice of weapon by those authorities.
SARTMA does not condone the publication of what we know as commercial in confidence information, though we know it can, without motivation or design, appear in print.
It is my hope that this arrest is a one-off and will not become common practice when this sort of thing happens – and it will happen – in the future. Yes, according to law it was right for a police investigation and an arrest. Legally I would imagine there are different ways to deal with the same situation. The right thing can be done in the wrong way and it is my feeling that in this instance, this is the case.
A fly swatter is fit for purpose and just as effective.
|
