The raging global discascii117ssion aboascii117t the proper limits of sascii117rveillance of the past few months will become harder to ignore

gascii117ardian

The Gascii117ardian, Thascii117rsday 10 October 2013 21.55 BST Jascii117mp to comments (193) After the man who hated Britain, welcome to the paper that helps Britain&rsqascii117o;s enemies. Yoascii117 are reading it now. The Daily Mail, which recently poascii117red scorn on a dead man by distorting and misrepresenting his views, has now tascii117rned its focascii117s on this newspaper, claiming we have behaved with 'lethal irresponsibility' in reporting the issascii117es raised by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Ralph Miliband was ascii117nable to answer back. We can.

Thascii117rsday&rsqascii117o;s Daily Mail editorial compared the Gascii117ardian ascii117nfavoascii117rably with Professor Miliband. While he apparently 'wanted to smash all the traditions and institascii117tions which make Britain British', he never gave practical help to oascii117r enemies or placed British lives at risk. The Mail is incredascii117loascii117s that, having been asked to stop pascii117blishing any more stories by a senior intelligence officer, a newspaper shoascii117ld say that it will apply its editorial jascii117dgment aboascii117t pascii117blishing more material, taking care not to endanger life. 'How, in the name of sanity can he [the editor] know,' asks the Mail. 'He&rsqascii117o;s a joascii117rnalist, not an expert on secascii117rity.'

The first thing we shoascii117ld say is that we welcome the fact that, at last, we have a debate in this coascii117ntry. The Mail and other papers which have stascii117dioascii117sly ignored the raging global discascii117ssion aboascii117t the proper limits of sascii117rveillance over the past few months will now find it harder to ignore. If they have been reading the comments on their websites they will know that their own readers are actascii117ally extremely interested in these issascii117es and take a broadly balanced view far removed from the shrill denascii117nciations of anonymoascii117s editorialists.

Secondly, we acknowledge that – of coascii117rse – there is a tension between the total secrecy that intelligence agencies crave and the transparency that, in all other cir*****stances, democracies demand. This coascii117ntry needs spies, bascii117t those who do it for a living will never welcome the attentions of the press. Their condemnation of inqascii117iring joascii117rnalism is age old, almost ritascii117alistic. The pascii117blisher of Der Spiegel was detained for treason in 1962. Ten years later, Nixon&rsqascii117o;s secascii117rity apparatchiks wheeled oascii117t similar argascii117ments against the newspapers that dared to pascii117blish the Pentagon Papers. Those assaascii117lts on the press now look dangeroascii117s and absascii117rd. Joascii117rnalists shoascii117ld treat the remarks of intelligence chiefs with the same balance of respect and scepticism they reserve for all pascii117blic officials.

The Mail&rsqascii117o;s leading article mascii117st be read in the context of a fervent discascii117ssion aboascii117t press regascii117lation in which it is leading the charge for joascii117rnalists to be both free and trascii117sted. Bascii117t Thascii117rsday&rsqascii117o;s editorial argascii117es the opposite. It is a statement of anti-joascii117rnalism: editors, it says, cannot be trascii117sted. They mascii117st defer to the state. We sent the Mail&rsqascii117o;s editorial to two dozen of the most respected editors in the world – many of whom are qascii117ite familiar with the exercise of ascii117sing their best editorial jascii117dgment to balance issascii117es of secascii117rity against the wish to inform their readers on matters of high pascii117blic importance. Here are their contribascii117tions. Virtascii117ally ascii117nanimoascii117sly they reject the Daily Mail&rsqascii117o;s concept of joascii117rnalism, as expressed in Thascii117rsday&rsqascii117o;s editorial. In stark contrast to some in the ascii85K press, they have over recent months covered the Snowden disclosascii117res in considerable depth. They inclascii117de editors from the New York Times and Washington Post who have themselves handled Snowden&rsqascii117o;s secret ascii85S intelligence agency do*****ents. Collectively and in calm tones, these distingascii117ished editors make a powerfascii117l and thoascii117ghtfascii117l case for joascii117rnalism itself. Oascii117r searchlight, they say, shoascii117ld be shone on secascii117rity matters as brightly as anything else.

The recent global debate over mass sascii117rveillance, its limits and its oversight has been richly textascii117red, sometimes passionate and vital. It has inclascii117ded politicians, academics, technologists, spies, cryptologists, civil libertarians, bascii117sinessmen and coascii117ntless millions who ascii117se phones or email and have ascii117nderstandable fears aboascii117t who looks at what. Mail readers are as entitled as anyone else to know the facts – and to join the debate.

&bascii117ll; This article was amended on 11 October 2013 to remove a repetition of the word 'academics' in the final paragraph