No easy answer to journalism subterfuge

Whether it is ethically acceptable for a journalist to use subterfuge to elicit information for a story ultimately depends on whether it is in the public interest.

Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen criticised a journalist for using "false pretences" to try and substantiate allegations that Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope physically abused former students.

Initially, Dr Cullen said the reporter was from TV3, but he later retracted this.

Jim Tully, head of the school of political science and communications at Canterbury University, said whether or not it was acceptable to use deception to elicit information for a story was contestable.

He said in most circumstances a journalist should always identify themselves and indicate they were information-gathering.

"But, investigative journalists in particular will argue that the end justifies the means when it comes to exposing something in the public interest."

Mr Tully said in matters of social injustice it could be argued that because of the strong public interest some measure of subterfuge or deception was justified.

"There will always be a very intense argument amongst journalists as to whether or not, in certain circumstances, being less than honest about who you are and what you are doing, can be justified. There is no easy answer there."

The Press Council statement of governing principles states: "Editors should generally not sanction misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge to obtain information for publication unless there is a clear case of public interest and the information cannot be obtained in any other way."