Danny Kruger

There is carless and unpleasant language here, but bulk of this clip seems to show a press officer and a party leader having a perfectly legitimate debate about a difficult case. That said, some of the things previously broadcast involving Reform candidates and activists are disgusting. They have no place in British society, let alone politics. I'm glad those responsible have gone. But I think there are some serious questions to ask about ITV's methods, and the public interest in this kind of activist journalism. Reform, and its predecessor parties, have now been subjected to hundreds of hours of undercover filming at three consecutive general elections. Every single recent by-election seems to have involved someone secretly filming. Now we're at the point where undercover journalists are being embedded in party offices for months on end, allegedly using illegal and fraudulent methods to misrepresent themselves. Secretly filming young people who are just trying to do their jobs. I'm really struggling to understand the public interest in some of this, particularly the filming young people inside Reform HQ. The Editor's Code rules on journalistic subterfuge are clear. There must be a strong public interest justification, and the material cannot reasonably be obtained by other means. Secret filming is supposed to be an exceptional measure, not a routine journalistic technique. In some of these clips, the undercover reporter appears to be actively prompting the conversations. At what point does exposing wrongdoing become entrapment, by encouraging people to say something for the cameras? And where does this end? Does ITV now intend to embed undercover reporters in Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green Party offices? Will they relentlessly film their activists, councillors and junior staff too? They surely need to to claim they are impartial. I've known journalists who worked on serious investigations. Covert filming was treated as a very big deal. Quite rightly. It is a serious invasion of privacy, and the bar for justifying it should be extremely high. Embedding someone in a workplace for weeks, building relationships with colleagues while secretly recording them, is an extraordinarily aggressive approach. I also know what it feels like to be on the receiving end. When I worked at the Brexit Party, Extinction Rebellion activists broke into our office, threatened us and filmed us. I remember the fear and panic I felt. It really shook me up. They subsequently published footage on YouTube, alongside a deeply personal article in the Morning Star about one of my colleagues, who successfully sued over it. The fear, unease and sense of violation that these experiences leave behind are difficult to explain unless you've experienced them. We also had Channel 4 journalists misrepresent themselves as working for ITV to gain access to events. Experiences like these destroy trust between people working in politics and the journalists covering them. It's part of a wider problem. We constantly complain that we cannot attract enough talented young people into politics. Is it any wonder why? Imagine being a young political staffer, working long hours for a cause you believe in, knowing that the person sitting next to you could be secretly recording your conversations for a national broadcast. Who would want to work in that environment? Why not just stay in the private sector earning better money and without the risk of humiliation and harassment on national TV? There's been a lot of debate about Reform's alleged hostility towards journalists. But I the media also need to reflect on their own conduct. Dominic Cummings famously argued that journalists had become political actors rather than simply reporters. Many certainly see themselves as the change makers and the stars. And Keir Starmer's move away from secretive off-camera lobby briefings towards more transparent, filmed exchanges reflected the same breakdown in trust, I believe. We should be asking where legitimate investigative journalism ends and political activism begins. And whether the relentless use of undercover tactics against one political movement is really healthy for our democracy. None of this excuses the some of the disgraceful comments ITV has broadcast. Reform clearly needs to step up its vetting, and the people responsible for those remarks deserve the criticism they've received. But exposing genuinely reprehensible behaviour does not automatically justify every method used to uncover it. There are legitimate questions about the quality, proportionality and purpose of this journalism/activism. And if Reform responds by restricting ITV's access, I think there's a strong argument that it would be justified in doing so. Journalistic scrutiny is essential in a democracy. But so are proportionality, privacy and trust. The media cannot demand those things from politicians while refusing to apply them to themselves.