The Morris Tribunal has recently made transcriptions available to the public. The day I have been most interested in of late is Day 434. It occurs to me that certain aspects of placing this material online have not occurred to the Tribunal.
For example at Ref 666:
Chairman Morris:
…So I’m going to make a request to the media for the moment that those names be excluded from any reports there may be. By all means report in full the contents of what Sargeant White has said, but please do avoid using the names in a way that would identify the two people involved until such time as we have had an oppurtunity of considering where we go from there.
But the two Gardai are clearly named by White a paragraph above. What do bloggers do in this situation?
It is interesting the Tribunal would put this report on-line and within its contents request anonymity for the two
Gardai, thereby breaching the very request they
ask of your media {which includes bloggers]. Especially
since one of the two [Garda MM] is on the witness list
for 8 out of the 12 cases.
Equally interesting is the fact you were able to isolate
that one paragraph out of 688 pages of text.
This text [to me]was such jibber jabber I would almost have to say the Tribunal may have been lacking confidence of anyone reading this material. You may have stumbled upon that verification when you stated [during your Clare FM stint} something to the effect the media may be exhausted reporting on this matter. That may be true
since you picked on it rather than a member of the main stream media who have unlimited resources available to them.
Technically, the names were already made public. However,
one can only appreciate a refreshing ethical question raised by someone with the means to take it one step further. It is your decision and in the end I’m sure you would be well supported.