AG百家乐在线官网

To misquote the philosopher Marshall McLuhan, it's the medium not the message that matters in the row over the Huawei leak.

I say that because very few people, if any, are accusing The Daily Telegraph of overstepping the mark by publishing the specific information it was handed about the Chinese tech firm.

It's the principle and precedent of leaking from a meeting as sensitive and sacrosanct as the National Security Council that is causing so much concern.

:: Listen to the New Lines podcast on , , , .

First, there is the legal context.

The Official Secrets Act exists to guard against the passing on of information that absolutely needs to stay confidential.

This could be intelligence relating to terror threats which, if leaked, could pose a real threat to the lives of people here and abroad.

If someone is found to be acting illegally, the law of the land means they will be investigated and the public interest arguments can be had in the open.

The fact that the police could be involved in the leak inquiry launched by civil service chief Sir Mark Sedwill suggests it could have more teeth that previous efforts.

Officers may be able to seize phones and look into the contact ministers and officials have had with journalists.

That has led to concern over the possible impact on press freedom and the confidentiality of sources.

A point perhaps exaggerated by the fact that political journalists have grown used to the leakiest of leaky governments.

Usual sources of information around Westminster have already become unusually quiet over the last day or so.

There is also the precedent that leaking from such a meeting sets.

The National Security Council is not the cabinet. The heads of MI5 and MI6 can attend the sessions.

Former members of the council have warned that these security-obsessed spooks will not freely share information if they fear it will leak out for political ends.

This, they say, is damaging to good government and bad for the public.

Then there is the ethical dimension.

Journalists have a responsibility to think about the impact their reporting has and curate their work accordingly.

Some of the disclosures of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks show the dangers of dumping huge amounts of information online with inadequate consideration of the impact it will have and the motive and methods behind the source.

It's incumbent on all responsible journalists to consider whether leaks they reveal put lives at risk or if they are being used by a source to push a political aim.

Let's suppose the Telegraph had been given confidential notes about spies based abroad or the headquarters of a terror cell.

I suspect the paper would have thought a lot harder about what was responsible to publish.

In this case, the information is less sensitive and the right of the public to be in the know is stronger.

The question of what level of involvement the Chinese firm Huawei should have in crucial UK infrastructure is a matter that's demonstrably in the public interest.

Huawei security risks

Why are other countries concerned about the Chinese telecoms company?

That doesn't mean that every cough and spit of the discussions should be leaked, but it does bolster the case for this information - which would have been made public at some point anyway - to come out into the open.

Westminster journalism is fuelled by quiet words in corridors, off-the-record briefings and, yes, leaks.

As Steven Swinford, the author of the original Telegraph scoop, writes today: "It is the fundamental role of political journalists to give their readers an insight into what goes on behind closed doors in the corridors of powers, and inform them of decisions that will affect their lives."

To direct outrage about this leak at the press is to miss the point somewhat.

The careful and responsible handling of leaked information to inform the public will always have a place in Westminster journalism.

Using top-level meetings on national security as ammunition for political point scoring is a different debate altogether.

In this case, it's the medium not the message.