Why it has always been a struggle for journalists to tear down privacy walls.

Just listening to Newstalk 1010 this morning, and the host's panel was typical Canadian sheep, not concerned about government nannying using absurd logic in "privacy consideration." The host had made a good observation in regards to a girl who was reported missing in Toronto: when she was reported missing, the police exploited the press by telling them to plaster her picture and name everywhere, publicizing her presence to the world, but when it no longer suited them, they refused to divulge any details of the two women arrested over the false report, citing privacy concerns. He then went on to say how the issuing of publication bans was promiscuous in Canada, but the panel were complacent sheep -- you know, rules are rules.

So many problems in the world happen precisely because people in power want to hold secrets from the public, but Establishment institutions always saw journalists as they extension and tool to blare out what they want, but expect them to comply with silence when the truth would prove inconvenient.

Yes, the laws regarding bans and privacy are out of sync in a world where we can easily preserve and access information. It is a form of controlling the information stream and denying fact-gatherers access to seeing patterns and information that may alter public perceptions, allowing bad laws from being passed because the actual situation is being grossly mischaracterized.

But journalism was never properly organized. They needed to educate and cultivate professions beyond journalist, editor, and publisher: they needed those who could go up against governments and courts to ensure their profession could function. But the blinders always got in their way...