It's a house of cards
Jul. 18th, 2011 03:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
innocent_lexThe phone hacking scandal has been on the go for years in the UK. For those who don't live here, the very short version is that a few years ago some journalists from the News of the World (a Murdoch-owned so-called newspaper) were investigated on charges of hacking into the royals' voicemails, most likely Prince William. Two people were put in jail, the NoW said they'd do a rigorous internal investigation and claimed there was no more hacking, and that was that. The Press Complaints Commission conducted an investigation and said there was no more evidence of hacking. It seemed that was that.
Unfortunately for the NoW, news came out that they'd paid off various football folks to keep quiet about their phones being hacked. Various famous people came forward and started to take NoW to court for hacking their phones. As more news came from further investigations (some from other papers, some from more authoritative sources) the news came out that pissed off the British public: the NoW had hacked into victims of crime, including a murdered teenager (Millie Dowler - they deleted some of her messages, leading her family and police to believe she was alive when she wasn't), family and victims of the 7/7 bombings in London, and so on.
There have been a lot of denials by a lot of people in the last few weeks and months, sometimes years. Some of those people have now resigned, some have been arrested, the NoW is now closed, Rupert and James Murdoch will be going before a parliamentary committee to answer questions, and there is both a police investigation and judicial investigation (set up by the government) in progress.
The commissioner and assistant commissioner of the Met Police have now resigned over this scandal, on the surface because of failing to uncover the full extent of these criminal activities. Who knows what other reasons there are. The NoW has been closed, and most of the country see that as Murdoch's attempt to appease people. Rebekah Brooks, ex-editor of the NoW who was in charge during the time in question and who was the CEO of News International, resigned (we assume once Murdoch realised people weren't going to accept NoW's closure as the sacrificial lamb). In good news, Murdoch has withdrawn his bid for BSkyB - which would have given him full ownership of the very large satellite broadcaster in the UK. NewsCorp still owns The Times / Sunday Times, The Sun (the biggest-selling newspaper in the UK), and 39% of BSkyB. They own a lot more in the US and Australia. These publications and channels have an enormous influence over public opinion.
So that was the short version. Really. The real issue this has brought into the light (as if it wasn't already known, just not really spoken of) is the power the media - in particular Murdoch-owned media - has in this country. Both the government and senior police have been involved with news organisations for years and years and years. There have been payments, hospitality, and high powered agreements made behind closed doors that we'll likely never get the full picture of. But the fact that MPs and prime ministers were afraid to piss off Murdoch and his senior staff is a clear sign of the disaster that's been on the bubble for years.
Possible actions coming out of all of this are likely to include more regulation on ownership of media, and also on behaviour of those working for those media. Some of that will be a good thing. Some of it may even come from a good place in caring about a broad range of opinions and not granting any one person or corporation too much power. But I'm sure some of it will be coming from a desire for revenge from MPs who've felt powerless in the face of unspoken but absolutely clear threat from those such as NewsCorp. While I think regulation will be a good thing overall to deal with the issues around power balances, from what I'm seeing at the moment the crimes that are coming to light are already crimes - you cannot hack into someone's voicemail, you cannot give or take bribes, and so on. Will the changes in regulation give MPs a feeling that they can now act on what they think is right in going after bad behaviour in NewsCorp, or will they just end up being another way for MPs to feel they can get away with things such as fiddling their expenses? Who knows.
This rambling post was brought to you by a disappointed but wholly unsurprised citizen of the UK.
For more on the timeline, see the BBC's notes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14124020
Unfortunately for the NoW, news came out that they'd paid off various football folks to keep quiet about their phones being hacked. Various famous people came forward and started to take NoW to court for hacking their phones. As more news came from further investigations (some from other papers, some from more authoritative sources) the news came out that pissed off the British public: the NoW had hacked into victims of crime, including a murdered teenager (Millie Dowler - they deleted some of her messages, leading her family and police to believe she was alive when she wasn't), family and victims of the 7/7 bombings in London, and so on.
There have been a lot of denials by a lot of people in the last few weeks and months, sometimes years. Some of those people have now resigned, some have been arrested, the NoW is now closed, Rupert and James Murdoch will be going before a parliamentary committee to answer questions, and there is both a police investigation and judicial investigation (set up by the government) in progress.
The commissioner and assistant commissioner of the Met Police have now resigned over this scandal, on the surface because of failing to uncover the full extent of these criminal activities. Who knows what other reasons there are. The NoW has been closed, and most of the country see that as Murdoch's attempt to appease people. Rebekah Brooks, ex-editor of the NoW who was in charge during the time in question and who was the CEO of News International, resigned (we assume once Murdoch realised people weren't going to accept NoW's closure as the sacrificial lamb). In good news, Murdoch has withdrawn his bid for BSkyB - which would have given him full ownership of the very large satellite broadcaster in the UK. NewsCorp still owns The Times / Sunday Times, The Sun (the biggest-selling newspaper in the UK), and 39% of BSkyB. They own a lot more in the US and Australia. These publications and channels have an enormous influence over public opinion.
So that was the short version. Really. The real issue this has brought into the light (as if it wasn't already known, just not really spoken of) is the power the media - in particular Murdoch-owned media - has in this country. Both the government and senior police have been involved with news organisations for years and years and years. There have been payments, hospitality, and high powered agreements made behind closed doors that we'll likely never get the full picture of. But the fact that MPs and prime ministers were afraid to piss off Murdoch and his senior staff is a clear sign of the disaster that's been on the bubble for years.
Possible actions coming out of all of this are likely to include more regulation on ownership of media, and also on behaviour of those working for those media. Some of that will be a good thing. Some of it may even come from a good place in caring about a broad range of opinions and not granting any one person or corporation too much power. But I'm sure some of it will be coming from a desire for revenge from MPs who've felt powerless in the face of unspoken but absolutely clear threat from those such as NewsCorp. While I think regulation will be a good thing overall to deal with the issues around power balances, from what I'm seeing at the moment the crimes that are coming to light are already crimes - you cannot hack into someone's voicemail, you cannot give or take bribes, and so on. Will the changes in regulation give MPs a feeling that they can now act on what they think is right in going after bad behaviour in NewsCorp, or will they just end up being another way for MPs to feel they can get away with things such as fiddling their expenses? Who knows.
This rambling post was brought to you by a disappointed but wholly unsurprised citizen of the UK.
For more on the timeline, see the BBC's notes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14124020
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 02:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 02:43 pm (UTC)If this had happened to any of their competitors, they've be all over it like wolves on a raw steak, but they aren't going to criticize their paycheck.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 03:24 pm (UTC)Where do you get your news from? Are there any channels that give you world news, or something that you'd consider balanced?
no subject
Date: 2011-07-18 04:38 pm (UTC)There's MSNBC, which is towards the liberal end of the spectrum, as well as the original cable news network, CNN, which tries to be middle-of-the road from what I've heard, but it's not doing them any favors.
I've found I only watch local news, which gives a bit of world news, but to truly get the news picture, I go online. Not only can I go to various sources, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, but I can use news aggregators, such as Google News, to pull news from a multitude of sources. If you have an account, you can fine tune things, so mine very rarely has sports news, unless it makes it way into the national or world news section.
The talking heads on the cable news stations don't report the news anymore, they're trying to make the news, in one way or another. Their rants just make my blood pressure go up, yet they're laughable as sources of news. It's a real irony that I can actually get more actual news from a parody news show, The Daily Show. They can actually "go there" with their commentary, and I've heard real journalists are envious of the freedom to mock the stupidity of the talking heads, politicians, celebrities, etc.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-19 11:49 am (UTC)For years now, the basic mindset of the average consumer of news has been that anything a journalist or news organization wants to do to find out 'what's going on' is okay because it's politicians and celebrities who deserve to be stalked and harassed. Famous people use the media, so it's okay for the media to use them.
Maybe they do - leaving aside that debate, which I never win - but I think it's incredibly naive of consumers to think those same organizations would limit their desperate acts in the name of 'getting a story' to famous people.
Essentially, western culture several decades ago said, 'hey, you know, it's okay to do anything you want, no matter how unethical, to get a story...as long as it's a famous person who deserves it.' And now we're shocked to find out that the news organizations feel justified in defining 'famous people' rather differently than we do. (Namely, as anyone who having information on is likely to get them money.)