Shouldn't be harder for journalists

Posted by Magda
I've filed about a couple dozen freedom of information requests -- formal requests through which anyone, including journalists, can ask for information from government bodies.

I've been told many times by people who don't want to release information that it shouldn't be any easier for journalists to find things out than it is for anyone else.

I can accept that. But it also shouldn't be any harder.

I'm going through a lengthy appeals process right now as I try to get information on why Guelph's former finance director David Kennedy unexpectedly left his job last year. The city doesn't want me to know why they don't want the information released. In explaining to the arbitrator why those details should be kept under wraps, the city argued that "It is also reasonable to expect that . . . any personal information revealed within those representations would be published in the media."

This is true -- if we knew anything about Kennedy's departure, we would likely report it. But it's troubling to see that used as an argument for not releasing information. If it shouldn't be easier for a journalist to get information, it shouldn't be harder, either.

Comments

[Edward Pickersgill]

Reminds me of why the press gained the moniker "fourth estate" back in the 19th century. There have been lots of challenges to the legitimacy of that moniker in the past few decades but I suspect the answer in the whirls of communication is the same to a degree as the answer in electoral politics. An engaged citizenry is essential to keeping our elected politicans on an honest track. Similarly an engaged community of readers is essential to keep news and views from actually becoming little more than the space between ads.

That being said I'm of the opinion that the cloak of secrecy around things like the sudden departure of our city's treasurer creates way too much speculation and harmful rumour. Its possible that surviving city officials are hesitant to be transparent if there is a possibility of legal ramifications that could cost tax payers more money but... if the issue is of such a nature then all the more reason to put it in context... unless of course the city if set out on a course to prove that we don't need a treasurer after all for a year or so. It difficult to believe that such would be the case.