Isn't That What a Private Investigator Does?

See if you read this the way that I read it:
We might employ third parties to carry out the necessary surveillance to find out where they are and where they might be approached and, on occasion, to obtain a photograph of them. Usually we track down individuals we want to speak to ourselves. But in very hard cases we might employ the specialist skills of a private detective to help us find someone.
And:
So suggestions that the BBC might use private investigators for political stories are wide of the mark and those who are "genuinely surprised the BBC used private investigators to stand up stories" should remain surprised.
Isn't there a lot of leeway left in what "might" be done and what "could" be done and what has actually been done in the past?

Why is there a difference between stories where it's perfectly okay to use private investigators and stories where it is abhorrent to use them? If you're one organization, why is it a stretch to suspect that your ethics might stray?

If it is not ethical to use the skills or methods of private investigators, then I think it stands to reason that you WILL NOT use them, no matter what the situation.
Enhanced by Zemanta