News of the World phone hacking scandal

[IdleRich]

"Why's it absurd? The BBC may be a more 'serious' less sensationalist news organ than the NotW, blah blah but hell, it's just as happy to take liberties witht he truth when it suits it. And no, it didn't perform the terrible phone hacking that the NotW did, but it took an indefensible political position on a humanitarian crisis (just as the first example that pops to mind), and ...er, who's to say which is worse (in the sense tht o compare is impossible, but they're both utterly morally repugnant"

I think that the BBC took a considered (albeit wrong) decision on whether or not they ought to run the I/P thing. They were walking through a minefield and tried to make the right decision - I don't think that anyone at the NOW who was involved in hacking victims of terrible crimes can argue that they thought that they were doing the right thing, it's a totally different level of badness.

 

[hucks]

Fuck. Ing. Hell.

 

[Sectionfive]

sky bid wobbling now too.

 

[Leo]

Fuck. Ing. Hell.

Confidential health records for Brown's family have reached the media on two different occasions. In October 2006, the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, contacted the Browns to tell them that they had obtained details from the medical file of their four-month-old son, Fraser, which revealed that the boy was suffering from cystic fibrosis. This appears to have been a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, which would allow such a disclosure only if it was in the public interest. Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed. The Sun published the story.

i believe rebekah brooks can plan on burning in hell.

 

[droid]

Para 2 - So the BBC don't engage in political bullying? You did WATCH their coverage of the recent spate of political protest in this country, I take it?...

Look at it like this. Journalism is a game. The mechanics of the game are what they are, and all news organisations are teams, who (I believe) are subject to the propaganda model and various other structural and institutional causes which affect what, how, when and in how much detail they report the news. You can say that the game is corrupt, morally deficient etc... and yes, thats all true to some extent.

At the same time each team and each player on each team are subject to the 'rules' of the game - not making stuff up, not using unethical means to obtain information, not deliberately misquoting people etc...

Now, all teams bend the rules here and there, they commit the odd foul when the ref isn't looking, they tackle from behind now and then, they handball... what NOTW have done is the equivalent of bribing the refs, raping the other team, killing the opposing goalkeeper and throwing shit all over the spectators.

Sure, you can say that the whole game is crooked and that anyone that plays is up to their necks in it, but that doesn't invalidate the appalling behaviour of an individual team on the pitch.

 

[crackerjack]

^ This

 

[IdleRich]

Nice analogy Droid.
Anyway, is that unequivocal evidence that the Sunday Times and The Sun have been hacking as well? Presumably they will be pulled too in the next few days....
We should do a poll on how long Brooks can last - I say two days max.

 

[you]

Droid - got to comment on this - Is that not a little morally apathetic? I'm getting very tired of the blurring of quite clear legal and moral lines in this whole debate - not droid but the coverage in general.

Accessing information that you are not allowed to access IS illegal, it doesn't matter if you are are doing so for good reasons ( such as a greater good ), doing it for fun or doing so dishonorable reasons such as selling papers - in short if you break a law you should expect to be punished for it, if you are aware of the crime or allowed it to continue you are, arguably, an accessory.

A footballer who speeds to training so he can be a better striker for a world cup match does not have his speeding fine waived, a carpenter who steels a chisel in order to complete a particularly nice bookcase for HRH will still get charged with theft.

 

[droid]

Im not really making that specific argument. There are plenty of other aspects and degrees of the dark arts of journalism which aren't technically illegal - see Johann Hari for a recent example.

That said, I think the kind of shit the NOTW was involved in could conceivably be justified depending on what kind of story it is. There's been thousands of media investigations into all kinds of political and business frauds and scandals, many of which have involved ethically questionable methods - paying sources, using hidden cameras and wires - even wikileaks... I guess the acceptability of these kinds of methods relate directly to how 'important' the story is, who it targets and why they are targeted.

In an ideal world, media organisations would have a procedure in place to regulate this kind of behaviour, there'd be a range of criteria that would have to be filled and then signed off on by an editorial team. This would all be recorded, and when the story is published, the methods, and the rationale behind them would also have to be published. Similar to security services when they want to tap phones. You would have to have a proper independent regulator as well of course. That said, there should be some methods that are always out of the question.

 

[IdleRich]

Problem with that is when a journalist gets signed off to investigate something and what they get isn't what they hoped to so they can't run the story. Then you've got someone who has been signed off to use underhand methods but to no end. I suppose that what I'm saying is that you can't really know what methods are justifiable until you know what the results are going to be and you can't know the results until you've used the methods.

 

[droid]

Problem with that is when a journalist gets signed off to investigate something and what they get isn't what they hoped to so they can't run the story. Then you've got someone who has been signed off to use underhand methods but to no end. I suppose that what I'm saying is that you can't really know what methods are justifiable until you know what the results are going to be and you can't know the results until you've used the methods.

You'd have to have a proper checklist of criteria... ie: a reliable source comes to a journalist with a claim that Ed Milliband is a robot, he has schematics, e-mails and other kinds of evidence. The Guardian decides the info is reputable and sets up a hidden camera near his house and checks the license numbers of visiting cars. Hey presto, a van belonging to the Tyrell corporation arrives and loads millibot into the back for maintenance and the Guardian has its story. It would of course be a risk for the paper, which would hopefully discourage the use of these methods except in ironclad cases.

Just to make it clear, I would automatically rule out stories that aren't in the 'public interest', so essentially anything involving entrapment, private individuals or the private lives of public figures would be out of frame.

 

[IdleRich]

But suppose the investigation reveals that he's not actually a robot, just an improbably boring and repetitive person? They've still done the surveillance. Maybe I'm naive but I'm more happy for the police to have those powers than I am for the press.

 

[Slothrop]

FWIW, the PCC code already has a set of guidelines for when and how much intruding on privacy is acceptable, which I think make sense:

When intruding into privacy an editor should consider the following:

— There must be sufficient sustainable cause—it needs to be justified by the scale of potential harm.

— There must be integrity of motive—it must be justified in terms of public good.

— The methods used must be in proportion to the seriousness of the business in hand using minimum intrusion.

— There must be proper authority—it must be authorised at a sufficiently senior level with appropriate oversight.

— There must be a reasonable prospect of success—no fishing expeditions.

Of course, these are meant to cover the merely intrusive rather than the outright illegal, but I think a similar set of considerations applies. The last one is basically what Rich is talking about...

 

[droid]

But suppose the investigation reveals that he's not actually a robot, just an improbably boring and repetitive person? They've still done the surveillance. Maybe I'm naive but I'm more happy for the police to have those powers than I am for the press.

They'd lose their license?

And what if the investigation regards police brutality or corruption?

Im just saying that a lot of good investigative journalism involves methods that are ethically borderline, but its seen as at least partially acceptable to use them when the target is an MP swapping money for influence or fiddling expenses.

The primary role of media in a democracy is (supposedly) to question and investigate governments, authority and elites, and there is some value in allowing the media certain leeway if there are actually attempting to fulfill this role.

 

[droid]

FWIW, the PCC code already has a set of guidelines for when and how much intruding on privacy is acceptable, which I think make sense:



Of course, these are meant to cover the merely intrusive rather than the outright illegal, but I think a similar set of considerations applies. The last one is basically what Rich is talking about...

Yeah, thats pretty much spot on, it just needs to be backed up with serious consequences for those who violate it. Massive fines, and a licensing system for newspapers.

 

[IdleRich]

Yeah, I'm not really disagreeing as such, it's just such a problem to see how to regulate this. What I mean is that they shouldn't lose their licence if they had a reasonable belief that caused them to investigate but the unfortunate and accidental upshot is that some investigative journalist has done something intrusive to no good end.
Enough about that though, interesting to see that the Times and Sun had lower than usual sales at the weekend. Maybe the contagion will spread.

 

[IdleRich]

Weird how every time there is a new revelation News International demand all the information relating to it as though they still have some credibility as an organisation that is actually going to do anything about this - and as though they don't have all the information anyway.

 

[Leo]

if this whole saga doesn't make you (even more) cynical, nothing will. in just the past week, it's been proven that huge numbers of journalists, top business executives, government employees, politicians, police and scotland yard are lying sacks of shit who will bend any rule and ignore any sense of decency for cold cash.

as john oliver said last night on the daily show, "a guy who got car-head from a transvestite hooker is now our nation's moral compass."

 

[sufi]

Weird how every time there is a new revelation News International demand all the information relating to it as though they still have some credibility as an organisation that is actually going to do anything about this - and as though they don't have all the information anyway.

you have to wonder whose campign it really is - i mean whose orchestrating the well-timed drip drip of new revelations to the public, carefully managed thru twitter and the mainstream press. given that the police shld have known all about it for ages, hugh g mentioned a while ago on newsnight superinjunctions episode that there were some right juicy revelations to come, the timing for sabotaging the bskyb bid seems neat, & would surely suggest high stakes & big players
or am i smelling conspiranoid?

 

[crackerjack]

you have to wonder whose campign it really is - i mean whose orchestrating the well-timed drip drip of new revelations to the public, carefully managed thru twitter and the mainstream press. given that the police shld have known all about it for ages, hugh g mentioned a while ago on newsnight superinjunctions episode that there were some right juicy revelations to come, the timing for sabotaging the bskyb bid seems neat, & would surely suggest high stakes & big players
or am i smelling conspiranoid?

Well you'd have to ask Nick Davies that. But if there were some shadowy players controlling this, surely the time to dump on Murdoch was a few months back, when Jeremy Cunt made the initial decision to wave it through (with a few meaningless guarantees about Sky News impartiality - see last week's Private Eye for precisely what they're worth). If this had all come out then, the bid would be history by now.