There is a quote often attributed to the great press baron William Randolph Hearst which goes along the lines of: “News is something that somebody doesn’t want you to print. All the rest is just advertising.”

That might not really ring true for the local press – after all, a lot of our remit is to highlight the good that people do, or inform readers about an event or upcoming attraction, none of which is contentious but all of interest to readers in a community.

But by and large, Hearst’s line does have a lot of truth – after all, if somebody – “somebody” in this case usually being an organisation, authority or public body – wants to suppress something, then the chances are they’re doing that for reasons that don’t generally chime with the public interest.

This has traditionally been one of the most valuable roles of the press – ferreting out this information that somebody, somewhere doesn’t want you the reader to know about.

In recent years, the press – and the public – has had greatly increased access to information via the Freedom of Information Act. The Act allows anyone to ask any public sector organisation for all the recorded information they have on any subject.

These organisations include Government departments, local councils, schools, colleges and universities, health trusts, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, publicly funded museums, the police, and non-departmental public bodies, committees and advisory bodies.

Not all requests will be accepted and organisations can only turn them down for specific reasons. Some sensitive information might not be available to members of the public, if it will cost them more than £450 (or £600 for a central Government organisation) to deal with the request, or if the request isn’t specific enough.

But the Freedom of Information Act has been used many, many times by the Telegraph & Argus to obtain information which has not previously been placed in the public domain.

One of the most significant usages of the act was in April this year when we asked West Yorkshire Police how many motorists had been snared by speed cameras in the road-works along the M62 motorway near Bradford – and they refused to give us the information.

West Yorkshire Police had blocked a request under Freedom of Information rules to disclose the number of drivers caught flouting the 50mph speed limit between junction 25 at Brighouse and junction 30 at Rothwell, citing fears it could ‘prejudice future enforcement policy’.

However, after we publicised this reason West Yorkshire Police performed a U-turn and decided to tell us that there were nearly 40,000 prosecutions last year, potentially netting £2.3 million in fines revenue.

Chief Superintendent Barry South said he had “reconsidered” the decision after reading the story and agreed with an argument by road safety campaigner Carole Whittingham that releasing the statistics could act as a deterrent.

“The Freedom of Information Act allows exemptions to releasing data and that exemption does apply in these circumstances,” Chief Supt South said.

“However, the argument that publishing figures is a deterrent is a compelling one and I want to say on this occasion, having reconsidered, there is good cause in the interest of road and public safety to release them.

“People should have the facts both as a deterrent and a warning and I feel it is important to share those with your readers."

Other major successes include: l March, 2013: City centre traders voiced frustration after figures obtained by the Telegraph & Argus revealed that only 32 people have been convicted following investigations into 684 burglaries of retail and commercial premises in the last year.

Business bosses called for more police presence to deter burglars after seeing the outcome of a Freedom of Information request regarding non-house burglaries in the Bradford south division, which covers the city centre and suburbs, from October, 2011, to September, 2012.

Police made 89 arrests in relation to the crimes recorded during that period, and 32 people were convicted, although police pointed out that some of those criminals could have been found guilty of several of the offences.

l December, 2012: About 1,800 commercial premises in the district are standing empty in what has been described as a “lost opportunity” for the economy and regeneration of Bradford. Latest figures, obtained under Freedom of Information rules, show that these commercial premises have a rateable value of £26.5 million.

l December, 2012: New figures showed that Bradford Council has received £2.3 million in paid fines over two and a half years since switching on cameras to catch motorists who misuse bus lanes.

The data, released under Freedom of Information rules, showed that from April, 2010, 92,923 fines have been imposed, equivalent to 700 fines and £17,000 in income a week to the authority.

l August, 2012: The number of people caught while misusing or fraudulently using disabled Blue Badge permits in Bradford had more than doubled, according to figures obtained by the Telegraph & Argus. Reports of Blue Badge fraud or misuse are also on the rise in the district as the number of prosecutions and cautions issued in the last five months is more than double the figure for the whole of last year.

There are many, many more examples. However, though we have become adept at using the Freedom of Information Act to obtain data, it is not something we should take for granted.

It was reported last week that three public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Borough of Barnet and Manchester City Council are to come under close scrutiny from the Information Commissioner after a failure to respond to freedom of information requests within the statutory time limit.

Public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act are required to respond to members of the public within 20 working days. But the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said it had received a significant number of complaints about each of the three bodies.

They will now be monitored until 30 June and will face enforcement action if they fail to improve. Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: “Responding to freedom of information requests within the time limit of 20 working days is not only a legal requirement under the FoI Act, but also an important means of demonstrating transparency and accountability to the UK taxpayer.

“The three authorities on the list have been selected because they are failing to respond to FOI requests in a timely manner and generating a high number of complaints to my office. We expect to see clear signs of progress throughout the monitoring period.

“We are aware of further concerns expressed about shortfalls in the performance of some government departments.

“We are reviewing the most recent set of statistics issued by the Ministry of Justice and comparing these with our own experience in dealing with complaints about these departments.”

So while the T&A will continue to fight on your behalf for the information that matters to you, we will also be closely watching the gatekeepers themselves, to make sure that our – and ultimately your – access to what you need to know continues to be made available.