Rock, paper, scissors – has privacy now become a trade-off we have to accept?

6 March, 2023

The handing over of 100,000 WhatsApps from the former Health Minister’s Matt Hancock phone – sent and received during the COVID-19 pandemic – to the Telegraph by the journalist who wrote his recent book has raised significant eyebrows across the House of Commons and throughout the country.

Isabel Oakeshott had been handed the messages directly by Mr Hancock following her signing a legal Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) before writing his last book Pandemic Diaries: The inside story of Britain’s battle against Covid, which was published in December 2022.

Ms Oakeshott has said she didn’t plan to publish Matt Hancock’s WhatsApps but decided to once it became clear that the public inquiry into managing the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK could take at least a decade to conclude.

Throughout the week, the Telegraph has run a series of articles based on the conversations- revealed through the WhatsApps – that Matt had had with other ministers and officials during this time. What started as a splash story on the front page has played out throughout the week with new daily revelations and predictable interviews across the media circuit and Twitter – where everyone can put forward their two pennies’ worth.

Aside from the revelations of what was going on behind Number 10’s doors, one of the most critical questions that need answering is – why did Matt Hancock think handing over his entire What’s App message history was ever going to end well? One can argue that he did so as an NDA in place – but as we are witnessing this week – does the public’s right to transparency supersede an NDA?

What’s App has quickly become the go-to method for secure messaging. But messages are only safe if no one else has access to them – least of a journalist driven to contribute to the ongoing narrative around how the government mishandled COVID-19 in the UK.

Ms Oakeshott had said her motive for handing over the WhatsApp messages was for the public to question further, scrutinise and criticise the government’s decisions regarding handling the COVID-19 pandemic across the UK. Regardless of anyone’s political preference, I am sure we all can feel Matt Hancock’s sentiment of utterly ‘massive betrayal’ by her actions.

Isabel Oakeshott has defended her actions arguing that it was in “overwhelming national interest.” But – what about her journalistic ethics and Code of Conduct? Or is there now an unspoken rule that the Code of Conduct can be breached if it is in the public interest?’ Did she consider how her actions would impact the entire journalism industry – where its ethics and morality are often questioned? Is the quest to shine a light on lies and false truths best done with the same tactics?

Some journalists across the media landscape are shocked at her actions – stating this supports some beliefs that journalists can never be trusted, whilst other media members believe the steps of Ms Oakeshott and the Telegraph are to be praised as they have acted in the public interest.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has said it will not take ‘at this stage’ launch an investigation into this stage as journalistic exemptions are in the public interest.

Mr Hancock is said to be considering legal action against the Telegraph. At the same time, Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer has commented that leaking these messages would only cause further pain to families who lost loved ones during the pandemic as the leaked messages were an “insult and ghoulish spectacle.”

Critics of Ms Oakeshott’s handling of the pandemic are to be reviewed through a public inquiry – and her leaking these messages has pre-empted a fair case.

This story is more like a rock, paper, and scissors game. Does whistle-blowing trump the journalist code, or is the public’s need for transparency consistently winning? Will the law still have a role to play, as these revelations were achieved by breaking a legally binding NDA? Or, has the damage already been done and a proper public inquiry now in jeopardy?

In PR, we advise clients to share information they would be happy with if seen by a wider audience. Once the ‘news’ is out, the narrative’s control has been lost and is at the mercy of those who write and read the news to make their own decisions. NDAs, whilst legally binding, only have limited clout – once confidential and sensitive information is out in the public domain, it can never be unknown or forgotten. No court case can truly rebuild someone’s reputation as quickly as it was destroyed.

In a noisy, busy world, whistle-blowing is a highly effective way to be heard – but once the whistle has been blown, the media scrum has started, and there is no way of stopping it.

The outcome of this latest government debacle is far from over, and there is a sense that several more Acts are to be played out.

Curzon PR is a London-based PR firm working with clients globally. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Business Development Team [email protected]