The British PM is saying that he will record all actions with media. And there is an implication that media itself should record and be transparent with all those sources they get.

HOWEVER, I see a huge problem with blanket solutions. While transparency does help in most cases, the side affect is that a whistle blower, be it a cop, politician, or worker at a company cheating on safety, might not report a crime if they cant do so silently to a reporter.

I am all for media because it is the watchdog on government. But I am not for taking away the rights and ethics of reporters as a blanket solution. I think this is dangerous because it can potentially keep people from reporting crime and corruption.

The tool of the reporter of being able to protect their sources has to exist and must not be completely destroyed. I do agree though, that especially from a public figure standpoint, there must be a professional wall of neutrality between the politician and reporter.

But Walter Cronkite saw the abuses that modern "journalists" coming back in the 80s. What was neutral reporting became sensationalist rush for the buck, which is the climate that leads to things like Newscorp today.

This is why it is so important for media to be responsible if it doesn't want to be attacked, to be responsible itself in making the distinction between opinion/entertainment and actual journalism and news.

A free society depends on a watchdog media, so when the media itself violates the rights of others it destroyed  the trust of the public and the credibility of the watchdog. And without that watchdog, a pluralistic society under a free press is in danger.

So while the individuals at newscorp who did these things need to be punished, and Murdoch, inept for not knowing, or deliberate and did know(doesn't matter), The media in general and their leaders have set the climate in the rush for the buck to allow the cheating and lack of ethics to flower.