Milo makes some reasonable points, particularly concerning the somewhat disingenuous tone of recent Guardian reporting.<p>However, they are a party to this dispute, and whilst the lack of professionalism is disappointing, it is quite understandable.<p>One can easily understand the imperative to make their coverage as compelling as possible; to tell their side of the story as strongly and as forcefully as they possibly can; to spread the message far and wide. There is no illusion of impartiality to be maintained here.<p>One can also understand (and feel some sympathy for) the embattled security services, unable to respond in any meaningful way whilst they endure a barrage of criticism from all quarters. Notwithstanding a small number of shameful episodes, they have largely acted with professionalism and restraint.<p>However, these shameful episodes, together with increasing partisanship in the media coverage leads me to worry that the level of professionalism so far exhibited by all parties is being gradually and inexorably eroded by partisanship and jingoism.*<p>The debate on digital surveillance (in all it's forms) is too serious an issue to be sidetracked by entrenched partisanship.<p>Yes, it is an important issue, and yes, we still need to rope in as many debate participants as possible, and yes, that means being shrill and controversial on occasion. However, there are enough sensible, actively involved people for us to start talking about what to do next.<p>* (I count myself as a guilty party when it comes to shrill and partisan commentary).