So a few points, not so much of disagreement but of addition in the debate between @oz_f and @timdunlop over media and Dan Andrews and so on. (See their threads)

First, in his article that kicked off the debate Oz approvingly referenced this piece https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/martin-mckenzie-murray/2020/20/2020/1603147648/hopelessly-devoted-dan which has a headline saying the government is not your friend.

I would want to add the nuance that the government SHOULD be your friend, and trying to make sure it keeps to that despite corrupting pressures is one of the main justifications for media in a democracy. Also, that to the extent that Australia emerges well from this pandemic

..it will be because we have a functioning gov. and public sector. (And, btw, we are doing pretty well despite bad mistakes). So the government is not your enemy. These points are reflected in the article, but the headline and the way the article has been referenced obscures them

Second, I naturally agree with Oz that leaks of information are essential to good journalism. But I would also say that it is incumbent on journalists to treat them carefully and heed the possible motives of the leaker in deciding how to use the info.

When a journalist agrees to keep the identity of a source secret, she is agreeing to withhold a part of the truth - often an important part of the truth that would help the public assess the info. That is a very uncomfortable position to be in. Journalists should be truthtellers

So to agree to keep a source confidential, and to deal with leaks, is a vital part of journalism. But the complicated ethics involved impose an extra duty on the journalist to act with care and to reflect, and I worry that sometimes the desire for the scoop predominates.

A number of leaks from DHHS in recent weeks suggest the politics in there is toxic. And we kind of know that from mistakes and events of the last six months. People are ducking for cover and seeking to spread blame.

In terms of my own reporting on the public housing lockdown back in July, I remember vividly hearing politicians assert that things were happening (food and medication getting to residents, etc) when I was on the ground AND IT WAS NOT HAPPENING

Now, I can't say how I know, but the issue in this case, at least, was not deliberate cover up by the PR people, but problems with how DHHS was briefing its own people, and I suspect its own minister.

That lets no-one off the hook. These are deeply troubling cultural problems for the department to have. They are the responsibility, ultimately, of the minister and the government. But we should not assume the PR people are deliberately lying. Sometimes they have been lied to.

Further, other recent leaks, including the one I wrote about for The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/oct/23/the-facts-dont-support-claims-of-a-brett-sutton-cover-up-over-emailson , would seem to come from those keen to spread the blame, rightly or wrongly, for past mis-steps....

...and as my Guardian article suggested, the media - all the media - went for the most sinister interpretation of the leak, when other intepretations were open. I am prepared to lay money that these emails amount to not very much and will not get much attention from the inquiry,

The most significant thing about them is they were not handed over by DHHS when arguably they should have been, and also the VERY FACT THAT THEY LEAKED. The fact they were leaked is what made it a story.

So the nuance I am trying to introduce here is that when a journalist gets a leak, considering the motives of the source and the context of the leak is very important, because you are compromising on your duty to tell the public the complete truth.

To say that leaks are vital to journalism and that governments cover up is true, but not the only consideration. To agree to cover up truth yourself (the identity of the leaker) is only justified (and amply justified) when by doing this you are able to get more of the important

..truth to the public. An easier example to make this point is leaks in the context of political leadership speculation. Think Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and how background briefers were able to undermine leaders with impunity, thanks to journalists agreeing to keep sources secret.

Then the pollys were able to lie to the public "I am not leaking" and the journalists could not or would not call them out. Deeply compromising for all concerned. Arguably journalists should have declined to receive some of those background briefings. Or exercised more discretion

and judgement in how they used the material. Motives of the leak were key to how they should or should not have been used. Now, to the here and now.

If anyone was foolish enough to make me editor of anything, particularly a Melbourne paper, I would at this time of crisis be trying to find ways to explicitly embrace and empathise with the audience without letting go of the duty to hold government to account. Not an easy job.

But here is the nuance I would add to what Tim says. Some (not all) of the criticism of journalists on Twitter is unduly personal, and yes, in some cases misunderstands or is written without a full understanding of how decisions are made or the difficulties of the job.

And yes, journalists largely fail in their duty to explain themselves and their decisions to the public. Nevertheless I don't think there is a single story that has been called out on Twitter that hasn't also been the subject of strenuous arguments and conflicts within

...the newsrooms. And this can get extremely hard for the people concerned. Big politics is in play, as we know. Smaller, purely internal, politics too, sometimes. So all of this is not so much to disagree with either Oz or Tim, but more to add some points.

And yes, all this is complicated by the issues of domination of the media by the Murdoch press, and the way they like to spin the ball.

And, overall, I very much welcome that people are talking about, critiquing and thinking about the role of the media and what they want from journalists. It can be rugged sometimes, but it behoves journalists to stand the scrutiny with grade and engage with it when they can

*grace