Good question, as the politicians might [or might not] say. It is in fact a powerful point raised several times recently, not least in the case of David Shayler, the former M15 agent, and the remarkable judgement by the Appeal Court in July in favour of The Guardian and Observer. It was also raised by Matthew Parris, the splendid Parliamentary sketch writer of The Times who is currently on a kind of sabbatical holed up on a remote island in the Indian Ocean where he has been seriously concerned about the question of journalistic responsibility. Parris reported [The Times, July 8] that he had deliberately suppressed a story containing dramatic events within the tiny island community where he is living because it would have seriously impaired his relationship with that community. So he decided to keep his big story secret. In order to respect the community’s interests Parris claimed that he had behaved “responsibly”. But in so doing, he then confessed, this marked him down as a poor journalist. The “really good journalist” Parris argued would have ignored the community’s interests, reported the drama and behaved irresponsibly. In short Parris is claiming that to be a first class journalist you must be prepared to behave irresponsibly at all times.

Now consider the judgement handed down in the Appeal Court case concerning The Guardian/Observer and David Shayler [July 21]. The state prosecution against the two newspapers demanded that the editors of the two papers hand over to the police and security services any information they may possess relating to the former M15 agent including Shayler’s alleged “evidence” of a plot to assassinate the Libyan leader, Colonel Gadafy. In dismissing this demand Lord Justice Judge told the court:

“Inconvenient or embarrassing revelations, whether for the security services or for public authorities, should not be suppressed... Unless there are compelling reasons of national security, the public are entitled to know the facts and as the eyes and ears of the public, journalists are entitled to investigate and report the facts...”

To still further develop Parris’s teasing self-criticism there is indeed a strong case to be made for journalistic irresponsibility as the ultimate safety-valve in a democratic, adversarial society and especially in one where secrecy and a culture of official silence is part of the traditional fabric – as it is in Britain. The trouble with that argument is it doesn’t require much imagination to recognise the enormous dangers in stretching it to extremes. Of course Parris is correct to say that there are times when a degree of irresponsibility separates the good, enterprising, diligent reporter from the mediocre.

The real issue is: irresponsible to whom? If such irresponsibility can be justified as a genuine concern for the role of a free and democratic press, in the wider interests of the public and in forcing into the open secrets that in themselves jeopardise those freedoms – then, yes, let’s be “irresponsible”. It could even be argued that it then becomes a public responsibility for the journalist to be irresponsible toward some other vested interest. That, surely, has to be the acceptable journalistic code. To be sure it is always a delicate, difficult balance and by definition there can never be an absolute prescription. The best journalists know that and act accordingly, frequently fighting themselves to resist inner temptations. It is a damned difficult business being a journalist, especially a good one – and it gets no easier.

It would be interesting, to say the least, to have a view on all this from the Press Complaints Commission. Unfortunately Lord Wakeham’s commission has been notably silent on issues which lead, inescapably, into seriously controversial waters.

Yet surely it is time for the PCC to demonstrate some real courage: it is desperately needed.