One of the Guardian's latest big stories in its Edward Snowden whistleblower series revealed sensational details of British spy operations, including the creation of fake internet cafes designed to allow British services to intercept communications of foreign diplomats - but in whose interest was it to reveal that information?
The public responded instantly via social networks, with some displaying a form of surprise that firstly, the Guardian considered spying news, and secondly, that it was willing to reveal information which could be considered off limits for reasons of national security.
The Guardian followed the piece up with an article explaining the laws that allow intelligence agencies to spy on foreign diplomats, specifically the 1994 Intelligence Services Act, and the concern it had caused other countries in Europe upon its publication. The piece also made mention of the 1961 Vienna convention, which offers protection for diplomatic communications.
While some Twitter users - including Conservative MP Mark Pritchard - reacted to the article with criticism, senior lecturer in media ethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, Douglas Chalmers, says the title got it spot on with the story.
"It is clearly in the public interest for the Guardian to publish details of the trickery, the spying, and the underhand methods used in the name of the UK national interest, in order to intercept the communications of visiting delegates to the G20 meetings.
"There is often an assumption that governments will act in the interest of their people, or that automatic support should be given to one's own government 'in the national interest' - similar to an approach of 'my country, right or wrong'.
"There is clearly no ethical basis for this. Governments represent those who have voted for them - but because of our antiquated first past the post system, normally do not have the majority support of the country behind them.
"Even if they did," he added, "their actions need to be judged ethically before support should be given to them."
Chalmers' view is echoed by Respect MP George Galloway, but others may take some convincing.
The Guardian may claim that GCHQ story is in the 'public interest' - but it is certainly not in the 'national interest'.
— Mark Pritchard (@MPritchardMP) June 16, 2013
Serious question: is the Guardian's reporting of GCHQ activities testing the boundaries between 'public interest' and 'interested public'?
— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) June 16, 2013
Dear Guardian, your UK readers and taxpayers (cough) are not well served by you revealing Top Secret info about UK intelligence capabilities
— Samuel Coates (@SamuelCoates) June 16, 2013
@GUARDIANNEWS - BONG! - British agents spied on foreigners. BONG! -Bears charged with woodland hygene offences.
— Harry Smith (@stvharry) June 16, 2013
Guardian does realise we pay taxes so GCHQ will spy on Russians? It is like their job, you know?
— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) June 16, 2013
This giddiness is beginning to meddle against public interest now RT @ggreenwald Guardian: how UK spied on G20allies http://t.co/ZOyvzrFTXy
— Steve Dennis (@SteveDennis71) June 16, 2013
This splash also undermines the previous ones, because it increasingly seems Guardian's public interest angle is All Espionage Is Bad.
— Jeremy Duns (@jeremyduns) June 16, 2013
Guardian reveals UK spies spy on people. Revelation of the century! lol http://t.co/4WUzLwM1Zz (not exactly in national interest)
— Bob Moss (@bob_moss) June 16, 2013
Now THIS is journalism! http://t.co/qZ7afmto2t
— George Galloway (@georgegalloway) June 16, 2013