"Some in the news business think it compromises our objectivity as journalists to set ourselves up as players on matters of public policy even in a cause as just and as close to our hearts as open government.

"I respect the high-minded intentions behind this view, but I strongly disagree.

"When a matter of public policy poses a straight-up choice between the public's rights of access to its government and a government effort to infringe or even narrow those rights, journalists cannot pretend to be disinterested observers.

"Journalists openly and routinely badger executive agencies and the courts for information and access we think the (US) Constitution says the public is supposed to have.

"Taking our case to the legislative branch is, in principle, no different. It is all newsgathering by other means.

"Getting down in the legislative trenches may not suit everybody's style. But at a minimum the leaders of every news organisation should consider being whole-hearted, full-throated participants in Sunshine Week."

Those words were uttered by Tom Curley, the chief executive officer of The Associated Press, one of the world's leading news agencies, or wire services, as they are known among journalists.

And his statement goes a long way to explaining why The Royal Gazette, like newspapers all over the world, feel it is necessary to become a participant instead of merely an observer on issues of open government, transparency and freedom of information.

But there's a broader case as well; this is not just about journalists and the media, even though they are likely to be beneficiaries of Public Access to Information laws, like the one launched by former Premier Alex Scott and now apparently wending its way through the legislative maze. Freedom of Information legislation gives the public a legal right to ask the Government, and other bodies, for information on public issues and problems of importance to them.

This week we have reported on how individuals and organisations overseas have been able to secure information that has revealed pay inequities, how pollution controls for power stations were dropped and so on. This is true empowerment.

It may be that FOI requests in Bermuda will not reveal anything quite as exciting, but as Mr. Scott argues in an opinion piece today, far from increasing mistrust, PATI legislation can build trust between private individuals and Governments by showing how carefully decisions are taken and why.

And United Bermuda Party MP John Barritt in a separate opinion, discusses how the controversial Sea-Land bailout in the 1990s under a UBP Government caused a scandal, not necessarily because of the decision to bail out the construction company, but because of the decision not to tell anyone.

PATI does not stand alone; it is part of a mindset and commitment to open government, in which decisions taken in private should be able to stand up to public scrutiny.

It should take away the sometimes arbitrary nature of what information will be released to the public and what will not. Instead, there should be a clear and accessible mechanism for the public to get the information it needs.

Questions have been asked why this newspaper, and by extension, other media, have not pushed for this legislation before. It is fair comment. We should have pushed for it years ago, and in part did not because of the desire to remain observers and not participants, as Mr. Curley alluded to.

Laziness, seemingly more pressing matters and, at times in the past, greater openness by politicians played a part as well. We should have pushed for it then; we are making up for lost time now.

None of that obviates the merits or need for PATI now. We urge you to support this initiative, not because it benefits the media, but because it will benefit you.