Leading article: Freedom of information has its limits
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ordinarily, this newspaper would oppose any attempt by the Government to keep information under wraps. And when the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, fights tooth and nail to prevent particular documents seeing the light of day, it is natural to ask what he has to hide. When you then learn that the documents contain risk-assessments positing downsides to the proposed NHS shake-up, the answer would seem to be clear.
The point is, though, that risk-registers, by their very nature, paint the bleakest picture. Publication might well seem to validate wild and unlikely eventualities. That could not only distort the debate, but – worse – discourage civil servants in future from envisaging negative scenarios or offering frank advice. The case against Mr Lansley's proposals is being well aired by professionals of all stripes. This may be one occasion when the public interest is best served by preserving confidentiality.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments