Just took a couple of weeks off to sort out my College work. We’re heading into the Silly Season, so everything’s going quiet as the politicos head off to Tuscany, right? Then this started to take off.
I was surprised that I hadn’t written about this (directly) before – although I’ve touched on it in the Privacy pieces. Let’s try and summarise all of the issues … as they stand today….
At the time of writing, the News International aircon systems are really taking a hammering from all the stuff that’s hitting it. New twists are emerging on an almost hourly basis, and there’s an outburst of fear, loathing and ass-covering that rivals The Thick of It.
The Original Claims
It seems to have started in 2005, when Prince William figured out that his phone had been hacked. Complaints led to the Royal Correspondent – Clive Goodman – being jailed for 4 months. The investigation didn’t go much deeper, though, once the Royals were sorted.
However, a number of people in the public eye began to suspect that their phones had been hacked or tapped. John Prescott, Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller were amongst those convinced that they’d been compromised, but had difficulty getting the police to take any action.
Once the (second, separate) police enquiry did start to let the victims of the hacking know, they took legal action. But News International were effectively able to prevent many of the (civil, not criminal) cases from coming to court by buying them off. Even though many would have preferred the public forum of a court hearing, they would have ended up paying for the expensive News International lawyers had they proceeded.
Victims
So it seems it’s not just the Slebs with egos who’ve been hacked. Or politicians. Or their friends and relatives. It seems to be people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time – like the families of the poor Soham girls, or of 7/7 victims.
Not only that, but the investigator involved was deleting messages from Milly Dowler’s mailbox when it was full, just so that he could get more material. An action which could give the family (and the police) hope that the abducted girl was still able to access her phone.
There’s a suggestion that even Sarah Payne’s family may have been hacked – if so, this would be the most cynical act of hypocrisy – Mrs. Brooks apparently sees the paper’s campaign which introduced “Sarah’s Law” as the major legacy of her tenure. That achievement couldn’t look more tarnished now.
“Managing the message”
Significantly, this seems to have taken place while Dave’s mate Rebekah Brooks was editor of the NotW. She writes:
“We will face up to the mistakes and wrongdoing of the past and we will do our utmost to see that justice is done and those culpable will be punished,”
The cynic in me would say that she’s had five years to do the facing-up and justice stuff. And all that appears to have happened is cover-up – limiting the damage to herself.
At the time of writing, news is breaking that NotW have undertaken a “document trawl” and that they’ve now identified the individual responsible for commissioning some of the hacking. Doesn’t seem like they were trying too hard the last time they scoured the records.
Bent Coppers ?
So after telling everyone that there was nothing else to come out, News International have now apparently “uncovered” emails suggesting that former Editor Andy Coulson approved payments to serving police officers providing information to the paper. Amazingly, Mrs. Brooks had owned up to this before a Commons committee – but Coulson (also present) managed to deflect the issue. more amazingly – the committee didn’t follow up on it.
No wonder – if these are true – that the Met could perhaps have pursued the original hacking claims with greater enthusiasm.
(Coulson was, of course, Dave’s Spin Doctor – and a cynic would note that the release of these emails could conveniently deflect attention from the current News Intl. hierarchy.)
Money Talks
Of course, what might really sink things is the money.
Not only is there a widespread revulsion at the NotW activities – which is likely to result in a massive circulation drop – but advertisers are reviewing the value of being associated with the rag. Ford have apparently pulled out, and even the bankers at the Halifax are considering having moral qualms…
If it affects the bottom line, then this is really going to get Murdoch upset…
But there’s an even bigger prize at stake – Murdoch want to get hold of the rest of BSkyB – giving him unfettered control of Britain’s biggest commercial broadcaster. After a widely reported screw-up by Vince Cable and the Telegraph, that’s looked safe in the hands of Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary. Now public opinion could wreck those plans.
Out of the Woodwork…
Finally, some of the people who should have been sticking up for us are peeping over the parapet to see if it’s safe.
Ed Miliband is suggesting that Mrs. Brooks should “consider her position”. Tough words, Ed.
And then there’s the Press Complaints Commission – trying to convince us that they aren’t just a synonym for “Toothless“. Now – as documented in Roy Greenslade’s blog – they seem to have been trying to run a charm offensive to convince us that they really did control the newspapers (many of which don’t even subscribe to it).
Journalists – when interviewed – always dutifully trot out the line that “it’s really, really serious if the PCC get involved”. Maybe they should try working in the Financial Services sector if they want to understand what “regulation” means.
But they’ve finally rumbled the fundamental weakness obvious to everyone else.
Baroness Buscombe – the chair of the PCC – is now complaining (heh) that “There’s only so much we can do when people are lying to us.”. Andrew Neil’s video interview on The Daily Politics is well worth watching…
I guess we can expect that – once the criminal investigation is over – the NotW will be severely admonished for their conduct. That’ll teach ’em.
Let’s remind ourselves about a couple of statements in the PCC Editors’ Code of Conduct. Admittedly, some of these have been introduced since the alleged activities took place.
“In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.”
“Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime”
“The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.”
But, of course, they give themselves the big cop-out line – used to excuse everything – of …
“There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.”
And, not surprisingly, the NUJ Code of Conduct uses the same unqualified excuse:
A journalist:1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
Hypocrisy
Most of the papers are carrying the story on the front page today. Sadly, the motives for doing so are (to my mind) cynical and suspect.
The exceptions are the News International stable, of course. The Times is running a non-story about judges being old and white. Not a shock to anyone, that. It does run the Coulson story in a side panel, which adds weight to the deflection theory.
The Sun’s front page doesn’t mention it at all.
So there’s no doubt about the genuine remorse the organisation is going through…
Sorting it all out …
Of course there needs to be an enquiry. That’s the minimum that needs to happen.
In 1990, (according to the PCC) the Calcutt Report recommended the establishment of the PCC for self-regulation. But, it said:
“If it fails, we recommend that a statutory system for handling complaints should be introduced.”
On the face of it, I can’t see that the PCC has much anything to justify its continued existence…
See First .. 