Trust and transparency (1)

Issues of trust, transparency and professional ethics have never been so high on the public agenda as people demand greater openness from the state, our political leaders and powerful institutions.

The collapse of the economy, the political influence of developers in fuelling the property bubble, the banking scandals, the extent of crony capitalism in Irish boardrooms and now, the revelations about the vile conduct of our religious orders and the government departments responsible for the care of vulnerable children, as well as the allegations of a professional cover-up of the crimes of paedophile surgeon Michael Shine, have all prompted a widespread scepticism towards so much of what, in the past, we genuinely respected and held dear.

The wonder amidst all this turmoil is that so many people have resisted being overwhelmed by cynicism and, if anything, have tried to engage fully and rebuild something new from the mess.

All the independents who stood at the local elections are an example of people who, from all walks of society, want to make a difference to our raddled country. People haven't cut themselves off: they want new ideas, new information, new facts about what is really going on… facts and opinion that they know they can trust, often provided by journalists of the greatest integrity.

It's that motivation that underpins the case being made in the Belfast Recorder's Court by the Sunday Tribune and our Northern Editor, Suzanne Breen, against a PSNI order for her to hand over notebooks, phones and computers after the publication in this newspaper of her interview with the Real IRA, the dissident republicans responsible for the Omagh atrocity which killed 29 people.

For Suzanne Breen and for this newspaper, the issue of trust is fundamental to her work as a journalist and to this newspaper's role in society.

The case arises from Suzanne Breen's interview with a member of the Real IRA army council which we published on 12 April. In it, the Real IRA member described revolting details of the 7 March murders of British army sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar at Massereene barracks and the wounding of two Polish pizza delivery men. He also claimed Real IRA responsibility for the assassination of Denis Donaldson, the leading Sinn Féin member who was also a double agent for British security services. Once again, the Sunday Tribune puts on record its strong condemnation of these and all acts of terrorism and supports fully the police investigation into these murders.

We regard the civil case against named members of the Real IRA leadership which the Omagh victims won last week as a victory for justice taken by families who, in many ways, were failed by the criminal justice system north and south.

But we are just as committed to the independent role of the journalist within a democracy and we defend utterly the right of journalists to keep their sources confidential, even from police undertaking a difficult and necessary murder investigation.

The ethical code of upholding the confidentiality of sources may not have any legal basis, as the police argued in court, but this is the fundamental principle that marks the professional journalist from the opinionated commentator and the internet blogger. If it is conceded at any point, it demolishes the integrity of journalism and means others will be less likely to approach journalists with information for fear they may be exposed.

A disturbing aspect is the fact that the PSNI's reasons for seeking Suzanne Breen's notes, phones, emails and computers were heard in a closed court sitting. It is indefensible that an order – which potentially carries a five-year prison sentence – can be decided upon without any explanation being given to the person who must suffer the consequences.

Suzanne Breen has already been threatened that her life will be in danger if she reveals her sources. This newspaper takes that threat seriously.

Trust and transparency (2)

The appalling vista the sceptics warned of when the government announced its blanket guarantee for Irish banks, including the most dysfunctional of them all, Anglo Irish Bank, is coming more and more into focus by the day.

We are being backed into a corner with fewer and fewer options, with all our resources directed at bailing out the professional banking investors – and nothing left for the people of Ireland.

Brian Cowen is right when he says the taxpayer would be exposed to a €60bn liability if Anglo is allowed to fail – but that liability is a direct result of the banking guarantee that he and Brian Lenihan and the rest of this government trumpeted as a resounding example of decisive action back in September.

Now we reap the consequences of being the only country in the western world to give such a blanket guarantee, consequences that are frightening in their scale and impact.

Ratings agency S&P downgraded its rating for Ireland as a direct result of the disproportionate drag on public finances created by the banking crisis, inevitably making the cost of borrowing to pay for our costly public sector even more expensive.

As the agency gave its verdict we learned that Anglo needs an extra €4bn to keep going, that losses this year could go as high as €11bn and that impaired loans and loans in the early stages of default were as high as €23bn.

The despair at being left with nowhere to turn has led to a debate that's going nowhere.

A huge problem in terms of making alternative suggestions is the lack of information.

We have to take it on the government's word that pouring more and more money into the banking system is the only option because we have no information other than what it provides us with.

Once again, it comes down to transparency. Nama has just asked all the banks to provide it with the names of their top 100 developers so that it can assess the depth of individual debt.

So far these names, and on what property the debt is held, have been kept confidential. There is a real case, now that the only thing keeping our banks and these developers going is taxpayers' money, for these names to be made public.

We need full disclosure of who we are bailing out and why so that we can judge for ourselves whether letting them fail would be as systemically catastrophic in all banks as the government believes. It would allow economists, elected representatives and interested parties to come up with workable alternatives (if there are any) to the government's utterly depressing plans.

It would also mean that, when we do get a general election, voters can accurately assess for themselves whether they think the sacrifices they are being asked to make are worth it.