A row is shaping up at the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday which will have hugely important implications for the way journalists do their job.
The inquiry is taking place in the Guildhall in Derry and the journalists who have been called to give evidence have been, in the main, employed by British media. But the repercussions of any decisions taken by Lord Saville and his colleagues will be felt here. Rulings of this kind tend to set a precedent for what happens in this State.
Almost as important, we have on many occasions been dependent on the British media, particularly television, to investigate miscarriages of justice and other scandals in this State. You don't have to look back to Granada Television's highlighting of the Birmingham Six case. More recently there was the BBC's programme on the handling of clerical abuse of children, which forced the Irish Hierarchy to confront the issue.
The very serious argument that has been taking place at the Bloody Sunday inquiry this week concerns the principle of confidentiality, when a journalist interviews a source anonymously, having given a promise that his or her name will not be revealed publicly, even in a court of law.
This principle forms the basis for most investigative journalism, which enables the media to expose, in the public interest, miscarriages of justice, financial corruption and other private and public scandals.
I gave evidence to the inquiry myself this week. I was pressed by Charles Clarke QC, counsel for the inquiry, to name a young man I had interviewed in the week following Bloody Sunday. He had admitted he was a member of the Official IRA and that he had fired at a soldier after the British army shootings on that day. When I refused to name him, lawyers representing a number of the British soldiers asked the inquiry to order me to do so.
At the end of my evidence Lord Saville told me that I may be called back and ordered to reveal my source, but if that does happen, I will be entitled to legal advice and representation.
MANY journalists have been in this position for refusing to name a source. What makes the argument taking place at the Bloody Sunday inquiry so difficult is that it involves two conflicting but compelling views of what constitutes "the public interest".
This week journalists from Channel Four News - arguably the most intelligent television news programme broadcast in these islands - have been defending their decision not to reveal the identities of a number of British soldiers who were interviewed anonymously for a series of reports screened in 1997 and 1998.
Lena Ferguson, who produced the series, and Alex Thompson, the reporter, have explained that the soldiers who were interviewed would never have spoken to Channel Four unless their anonymity was guaranteed.
It is widely accepted that the new information about Bloody Sunday, which was revealed in this series, was critical to Tony Blair's decision to set up the Saville inquiry. Several of the soldiers, who had never spoken about Bloody Sunday before, gave interviews which contradicted the findings of Lord Widgery in 1972.
The Saville inquiry's team, which is impressively thorough, has been unable to trace these soldiers, although one of them has waived the confidentiality agreed with Channel Four.
Charles Clarke SC, for the inquiry, has previously argued it would be "a supreme irony" if the inquiry was to be denied the very sources of the information which led to its being set up in the first place. On Tuesday, Mr Clarke added that the inquiry's search for the whole truth of what happened on Bloody Sunday far outweighed the arguments for confidentiality put forward by the Channel Four team.
HE did not accept the case put forward by Alexander Caldecott QC, who represents Channel Four. In essence this is as follows: if Mr Thompson and Ms Ferguson are ordered to disclose their sources, it will make it extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for a journalist to give a pledge of confidentiality to a source.
This will damage very seriously the ability of the media to expose public or private scandal, particularly when this involves criticism of government agencies. The public interest, Mr Caldecott added, is best served by the free flow of information. The fact that the Channel Four reports played a substantial part in the setting up of the Bloody Sunday inquiry is an argument for journalistic confidentiality, not against it.
Channel Four is not the only media organisation which is likely to come under pressure. The BBC and UTV have been asked to provide further information about programmes made with the help of unidentified sources in both the British army and the Provisional IRA.
The dilemma facing the families of the Bloody Sunday victims is particularly acute. On the one hand, they recognise they owe a debt to the journalists whose work helped to ensure the setting up of the inquiry. On the other, they want the truth to come out.
Obviously I have a personal interest in the argument. In my declining years, with peace established in Northern Ireland, this column my yet come to you from a prison cell.