News of the World 0; Guardian 1
Extraordinary. The world's most read (and most loathed?) English-language newspaper, in existence for 167 years, is to cease publication this Sunday after the rapidly developing events of the last couple of days. Rupert Murdoch's sensationalist tabloid News of the World has faced escalating revelations of wicked and illegal behaviour, including hacking the phones of up to four thousand people - royalty, politicians, celebrities, murder and terrorism victims and their families, soldiers killed in Afghanistan and those of their relatives - as well as interfering in police investigations, paying police for information, lying under oath and (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the rest of this list) hacking the phones of those involved in the investigations into their own misdeeds.*
*I would provide links to each of these, but it would take all day. There is extensive coverage here and just about everywhere.
Credit must go to the years of investigative work by Nick Davies at the Guardian, who kept following the story despite threats from NotW and scorn or lack of interest from many other mainstream media sources.
The fallout will continue for some time. There will be retrials, public inquiries, reform of how the media are (self-)regulated, questions about how one of the editors at the heart of the scandal ended up working for the Prime Minister, reviews in the role of police corruption and very serious questions (hopefully) about the BSkyB takeover that looked set to give Murdoch even more control over British media (and which ought to be rejected on media plurality grounds alone).
UK voters can sign a petition against the takeover and/or contact your MP.
I have no illusions that this will be the end of bad journalism, nor that Murdoch will be likely to change his ways, or lose his malign influence on the politics of too many continents. A publication like NotW doesn't get to where it was without an extensive public willing to pay good money to read gossip and slander. Those malformed desires will not disappear overnight. Other publications will quickly fill the void.
Nonetheless, perhaps this whole episode is a chance for us to stop momentarily and consider what really counts as news, and whom we trust to tell us about it.
Let us also remember that the self-righteous and vicarious schadenfreude offered by the gutter tabloid press at the failings and foibles of the famous is all too easily replaced with self-righteous and vicarious schadenfreude at the humiliation of that very press's flagship. So let us not rejoice at a black eye for Murdoch, but mourn for our own myopic moral vision that all too often secretly wishes to be kept in the dark.
*I would provide links to each of these, but it would take all day. There is extensive coverage here and just about everywhere.
Credit must go to the years of investigative work by Nick Davies at the Guardian, who kept following the story despite threats from NotW and scorn or lack of interest from many other mainstream media sources.
The fallout will continue for some time. There will be retrials, public inquiries, reform of how the media are (self-)regulated, questions about how one of the editors at the heart of the scandal ended up working for the Prime Minister, reviews in the role of police corruption and very serious questions (hopefully) about the BSkyB takeover that looked set to give Murdoch even more control over British media (and which ought to be rejected on media plurality grounds alone).
UK voters can sign a petition against the takeover and/or contact your MP.
I have no illusions that this will be the end of bad journalism, nor that Murdoch will be likely to change his ways, or lose his malign influence on the politics of too many continents. A publication like NotW doesn't get to where it was without an extensive public willing to pay good money to read gossip and slander. Those malformed desires will not disappear overnight. Other publications will quickly fill the void.
Nonetheless, perhaps this whole episode is a chance for us to stop momentarily and consider what really counts as news, and whom we trust to tell us about it.
Let us also remember that the self-righteous and vicarious schadenfreude offered by the gutter tabloid press at the failings and foibles of the famous is all too easily replaced with self-righteous and vicarious schadenfreude at the humiliation of that very press's flagship. So let us not rejoice at a black eye for Murdoch, but mourn for our own myopic moral vision that all too often secretly wishes to be kept in the dark.
"And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed."
- John 3.19-20 (NRSV).
21 comments:
Speaking of schadenfreude, this may not be up for long.
Sam Norton offers his thoughts.
This was an interesting speech by Labour MP Chris Byrant in parliament yesterday, laying out some of what is at stake.
Guardian editorial. Closing NotW is yet another diversionary tactic.
Guardian: Further attempts to obstruct the course of justice as NotW executives accused of deleting half a terrabyte of archived emails.
Guardian: Cameron admits (some of) his own failures in a widespread problem shared by politicians, police and media.
I thought this comment was worth recording: "In a little over two years The Guardian have had the Trafigura episode, the killing of Ian Tomlinson, Wikileaks and now this. No other British newspaper has a record anything like it. Keep up the good work."
Kudos to the following charities, who all refused the offer of free advertising in the final edition of NotW: RNLI, RSPCA, The Brooke, Care International, Thames Reach, Action Aid, WaterAid, Salvation Army, VSO, RSPCA, Oxfam and Barnardo's.
Renault is the first company to have pulled all its News International advertising (at least for the time being).
Guardian editorial: Murdoch's malign influence must die with NotW: "Over 40 years, Murdoch convinced the establishment that he can make or break political reputations and grant or take away electoral success. In doing so, he has come close to gelding parliament, damaging the rights of citizens and undermining democracy. It is legitimate to ask how a naturalised American, domiciled in New York, born in Australia, and who pays next to no UK tax, holds so much sway. What right exactly did this man have to exert such influence over our political life? Freedom of information requests reveal that he spoke to prime minister Tony Blair three times in the 10 days that led up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. This was a perversion of our politics, orchestrated by a man whose power the establishment failed to check."
SMH: I asked about ethics and Rupert called me a wanker.
Guardian: On the failure of the entire political class: "This story is about the failure of the entire political class. Journalists and politicians, advisers, PR people, writers and lawyers drank Murdoch's champagne, swooned in his company, took his calls and allowed Rebekah Brooks to irradiate them with her crooked little smile. Over more than three decades, the perversion of politics by and for Murdoch became institutionalised, a part of the landscape that no one dared question.
"Serious crimes were committed and the police covered them up. Corrupt, or at least badly compromised, relationships became the norm and all but a very few politicians looked the other way, telling themselves this was how things were and always would be."
Guardian: Gordon Brown was a major target while he was chancellor and PM.
Guardian: The Met Police are not doing a good job of explaining themselves.
"Clarke said he could not justify the resources that going through the 11,000 pages of files would have taken. In 2006, when Goodman and Mulcaire were arrested, he was overseeing 70 terrorism investigations and said he prioritised resources at operations to stop terrorist attacks."
This shows seriously skewed priorities. Potential terrorist risks are a problem, yes (though given that we know the Met were spending large amounts of resources infiltrating pacifist eco-groups...), but such possible threats are not comparable to credible evidence of widespread corruption at a major newspaper.
And then the following three paragraphs seems to imply: "it was too hard so we gave up and kept looking for possible terrorists instead of following a major lead we knew led to dark places".
For those who can't understand any news story until Jon Stewart has explained it.
GLW: Gaol Murdoch, not Assange. Interesting comparison of the two episodes. They miss one obvious parallel - both men were born in Australia but have departed to walk the world stage.
Guardian: Interesting background piece on Tom Watson, the Labour MP who kept digging.
Nick Davies: More serious revelations in this saga, which goes on and on.
The Conversation: Scandal and schadenfreude as the Sun self-destructs.
Guardian: Rebekah Brooks arrested, again.
Schaedenfreude alert: Brooks to be charged with perverting the course of justice.
Post a Comment