Keith Vaz MP condemned the Sunday Mirror’s exposure of his meeting with two male prostitutes by saying it was “deeply troubling that a national newspaper should have paid individuals to have acted in this way”.

Deeply troubling for Vaz, of course? But is it troubling for anyone else - for the public, for his constituents, for fellow MPs?

In terms of journalistic ethics, the central issue about the newspaper’s conduct is whether the article, and the method employed to obtain it, had a genuine public interest justification.

We have been here many, many times down the years, although somewhat more rarely since the Leveson inquiry.

First, let’s consider the matter from Vaz’s position. The paper intruded into his privacy. It was entirely up to him if he wished to engage the services of prostitutes. It was not a criminal act.

Turning to method, it was outrageous for the paper to have paid a prostitute. Although Vaz has not accused the Mirror of entrapment, some people speaking for him have done so (which is incorrect).

In looking at it from the paper’s point of view, its editor would surely have had in mind two clauses in the editors’ code of practice, one about privacy and the other about the use of hidden cameras.

Before we get to those, some important factual details. Two men approached the Sunday Mirror, having previously met Vaz and claimed to have been paid by him for their services. One of them recognised him and that prompted the approach to the Mirror.

As for the covert filming, the paper did not do this itself. Instead, it offered advice to one of the men on how it should be done. The paper’s legal team was fully aware of all the decisions.

A Mirror source underlined this point, saying it was neither a sting nor a set-up. “We did not entrap him”, said the spokesperson. “We acted in the public interest and, in so doing, we omitted many other details of the meeting between the men and Mr Vaz.”

So this whole affair revolves around privacy. According to the editors’ code intrusion into a person’s privacy is warranted if there is a genuine public interest.

Among the definitions of public interest are the exposure of “serious impropriety” and the exposure of actions or statements by an individual that could be said to mislead the public.

The Sunday Mirror’s editorial made its stance clear. It conceded that “nothing Mr Vaz has done is illegal.” But, as chairman of the home affairs select committee, he held a powerful position.

In that capacity he was overseeing the committee’s inquiry into prostitution. He has also made public statements about the dangers of drug-taking, yet he appeared to take a liberal view of cocaine use by other people (according to the Sunday Mirror article).

During the meeting between Vaz and the male escorts, he also mentioned poppers, often euphemised as “a party drug”. Vaz opposed government attempts to criminalise the drug. It remains legal.

So, in sum, the newspaper’s defence is that it was doing its duty by revealing to the public that a politician who is heading a committee that scrutinises both prostitution and drugs was guilty of double standards. Or, to quote the paper’s article, “leading a double life.”

Other newspapers piled in on Monday. The Daily Mirror splashed on the story (“Sex shame MP Vaz told quit now”), as did the Daily Mail (“Shameless”), the Daily Telegraph (“Keith Vaz’s charity links to rent boy scandal”) and Metro (“Keith Vice).

The others gave it front page coverage too. Several, including the Telegraph, referred to an allegation that Vaz had paid the escorts with the help of somone using funds linked to a diabetes charity he founded. This claim has been strenuously denied.

In his initial response, Vaz was quoted as saying: “I have referred these allegations to my solicitor Mark Stephens of Howard Kennedy who will consider them carefully and advise me accordingly.”

That should be interesting, given that Stephens is a forthright press freedom campaigner.

Leaving to one side any speculation about their discussions, it strikes me that Vaz is going to find it hard to mount any kind of case against the Sunday Mirror.

It is true that prostitution is not illegal and politicians have a right to a private life. But, however much one sympathises with Vaz, it is undeniable that he is compromised by his special position as the chair of a commons committee tasked with making recommendations about prostitution.

Elected politicians, people responsible for making laws, must live by different standards to those who vote for them. As plenty of MPs have discovered in the past, they have to pay a price for the privileges they enjoy.

Part of that price is the need to sacrifice an absolute right to privacy.

