Following the Telegraph's publication of the expense claims of British MPs from the past five years, there has been much attention given to how the publication obtained their information, and if the process was indeed ethical. Whilst the Telegraph itself has so far remained silent on the matter and refused to confirm whether or not it paid for the data, there has been a stream of information about the origins of the data coming from other sources.

Two names have now been put forward as the intermediaries in the sale, ex-SAS man John Wick and Henry Gewanter, managing director of an American PR firm. Whilst Wick has so far been unavailable for comment, Gewanter has essentially confirmed his involvement. He is keen to clear up one of the greyer areas of the saga; "No criminal acts have occurred. No criminal charges can be brought. I don't deal in stolen goods... I can tell you it was not stolen"

The method in which the data was obtained has been one of key issues surrounding the Telegraph's involvement - that, and whether or not it paid (which looks likely, given that the Sun and the Times were both offered the data for different prices). Somebody the Guardian describes as "a newspaper executive with knowledge of the situation" has claimed that the data was copied from a classified government computer onto a portable hard drive, and somehow went undetected by Commons security.

The issue has stoked debate on both data protection laws and 'chequebook journalism'. In the Wall Street Journal, Aaron O. Patrick writes that "House Speaker Michael Martin said a police investigation is needed because the data contain personal information including credit-card numbers, computer passwords and telephone numbers" - the release of personal information is prohibited by law in Britain. With regards to 'chequebook journalism', however, Patrick points out that it "is common, though little acknowledged" in UK newspapers, albeit mostly in tabloids.

A newspaper paying for information - particularly information obtained by dubious means - is an undesirable situation. However, the Telegraph's exposure of MPs bending the rules on expense claims is in the public interest. It reaffirms the role of newspapers as governmental watchdogs, and as such gives a valid reminder of the importance of newspapers in a democracy. Moreover, it provides a counter argument to government bail-outs as a solution to the problems of the UK newspaper industry - would a newspaper dependent on government money have been as ready to publish this damning data?

Source: Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Mail Online, Times Online