Of course "historically [the papers have] maintained cordial relationships with the security [and intelligence] services", in much the same way as they have with the police - that's the point, surely?
That whatever quid pro quo is superficially offered as a justification for these sorts of things, inevitably and swiftly they degenerate into symbiotically, corrosively corrupting clusterfucks of clubbability, self-interest and powerbrokering - at the expense of any public benefit.
Because these sorts of relationships, shaded from public oversight, hidden from hoi polloi by self-selecting overseers, can only ever degenerate into back room carve-ups, back alley bungs, scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours secret deals, where the privileged gnostics always end out on top, invariably at our expense.