Limits to the use of news exclusives | 13 So the Ombudsman agreed with the Ministry of Justice that the news that proceedings would be instituted for the dissolution of LTF should not have been brought as a news exclusive – but he did not agree with the Ministry’s grounds. The Ombudsman found that the news story could not be brought as an exclusive because it did not concern a political matter. What are the ground rules for the use of news exclusives? Just as there are limits for the types of news that can be communicated as a news exclusive, so are there limits to the way the authorities can act when they use news exclusives. Here, it is again central that a news exclusive not be used for illegitimate purposes. This means, among other things, that news exclusives must not be used to pressure journalists and news media into giving a specific slant to a story in such a way as to reflect positively on the authority. Nor can news exclusives – like all information – be withheld based on a wish to punish a particular journalist or news medium. As mentioned above, it is also important to be very conscious of the principle of equality. This means, for instance, that when an authority has given a news exclusive to one news medium, it cannot generally decline to give the same information to another news medium asking for the same material. And dependent on the circumstances, the authority should advise the other news medium on the possibilities of gaining access to the information. In other words, this means in practice that an agreement on a news exclusive can be blocked if another journalist requests access to files in time before the news exclusive goes public. One instance where this happened was when Case No. 04.452 The Prime Minister’s Office had given a newspaper access to a speech which the Prime Minister was going to give on the European Union. The newspaper would run the speech as a feature article on the same day that the Prime Minister gave the speech. The day before the speech was due to be given, however, another newspaper also asked to see the speech. The second newspaper was denied access to the speech on the grounds that the first newspaper had already been granted access. The reason was that the Prime Minister’s Office wanted the speech to go out as a news exclusive. The Ombudsman stated in the case that an authority’s interest in the launching of certain messages as news exclusives – in order to ensure effective coverage and optimal impact – cannot in itself be denied legitimacy. However, the regard for effective coverage etc. cannot claim such decisive weight against the statutory principle of free access to public records and the administrative law principle of equality that it can generally be used as grounds for withholding information from others or that others get delayed access. Consequently, the Prime Minister’s Office should immediately have given access to the newspaper asking to see the speech, as there were no grounds for delaying the decision on access. a newspaper asked the Prime Minister’s Office for access to a speech which had already been given to another newspaper. (Case No. 04.452). Does this then also mean that there is a duty to provide a journalist who asks for it with information which has previously been given verbally as part of a news exclusive to another news medium? That is a separate question.