You're right tsnake, it should have been "right to know". However I stand by my comments. I do not believe that the people who say that have a "right to know" in this wonderful democracy that we live in also have a right to compromise my, or any other person's, right to live in a safe environment.
You accuse woftam of advocating censorship by asking for closure of this thread (although I would have thought that he/she is entitled to their right to free speech). However you then cite an example where the press itself allegedly decided to withhold information with the implication that this was in the public interest. So are you saying that it's ok for the press to determine what does and doesn't get published in the public interest? Now, that wouldn't be, oh gosh! CENSORSHIP, would it? Or is it democratically all right if it's the press taking on the role of arbiter of what is good or what isn't good for the public?
Are we having our cake and eating it yet?
I could waste hours of bandwidth arguing about it, but I have better things to do.
Whether or not people can get better information elsewhere, it is better not to say anything. Information is a big jigsaw set where sometimes you just need to get the last piece in place before you can see the whole picture. If you don't want anyone else to get the picture, you withhold any pieces you have, no matter how small, because every piece can make a difference. And sometimes just pointing out the existence of a gap can, in itself, reveal something that should not be seen.