When does a journalist overstep the mark?
I would like to ask what my fellow journalists think on this subject.
It's not so much the content of the messages sent by Matt Hancock but whether the journalist working on them should have released them into the public domain.
To my mind if you work on a book with someone any information you receive over and above what goes into the book should stay with you and not get released to the world. I'm not commenting on the content of what happened between Hancock and others because this isn't my point.
If I was writing a book with a known celebrity or someone with a high public profile I would see our relationship as a professional one where anything said to me in confidence would not be reported on.
As for Ms Oakeshott. Well I just wonder what her motives are in releasing all these messages. Has she been paid handsomely, what was her relationship with Hancock. does she really believe that releasing these messages is in the public's interest. Does she want her 15 minutes of fame.
I have watched her body language during interviews and she seems to be an angry young women bent on some kind of revenge. Again the question is why? She continually tells us that she is "good at her job" as if we might dispute this. I suggest that humility is not one of her strong points.
So I'm wondering from a journalism point of view whether my views are shared by others in the trade.
And that's why I'm writing my own biography. I don't want somebody to dish the dirt on me and all those e-mails and texts between myself, Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny. Not to mention my negotiations from years ago with the Tooth Fairy.
* * *
I am aware that I haven't featured many photos in this blog recently. I am hoping that a couple of days in North Norfolk will remedy that. Watch this space as they say.