Celebrities encourage intrusion, and we have a right to know about anything that affects politicians' ability to do their jobs
The most extraordinary thing about the News International crisis is the way in which it has caused the British national media to lose its greatest weapon: scepticism.
If this was happening in any other sector, there would be have been a brief flurry of witch-hunting followed quickly by more measured analysis of the bigger picture, and calm would have descended.
But journalists appear to be incompetent when reporting on their own activities. A few commentators have sounded warning notes about the scale of the current hysteria but in general the press has rolled over.
Regarding the most shocking revelation of them all, that Milly Dowler's voicemail was allegedly hacked into on behalf of the News of the World, there is a valid, albeit arguable, journalistic justification for it. If it is true, as alleged, that private detectives deleted some messages in order to allow new ones in, then any new message might have carried a clue as to the child's whereabouts and indeed our increasingly beleaguered police might have thought of this for themselves. The NoW showed some initiative here ? it is only a pity they did so in such an insensitive and self-interested fashion, failing entirely to acknowledge the distress this could (and did) cause the Dowler family.
Looking into the affairs of celebrities is a tawdry business but, as has been said many times in the past under broadly similar circumstances, it is generally encouraged by those concerned. A huge number of long-lens "intrusions" are carefully stage-managed. I know this from direct experience. Indeed, the show-business end of the public relations industry is handsomely rewarded to increase the media coverage of celebrities and drum up interest in their private lives.
Ever since the Camillagate scandal (when Prince Charles's mobile phone call to his lover, Camilla Parker-Bowles, was recorded and sold to the media) broke 19 years ago, it has been common knowledge that hacking unprotected mobile phones is easy. It has also been possible to block such hacking. Prince Charles hasn't been hacked again. Nor have subsequent political leaders, as far as I can recall. That is because the technology is available to protect mobile phone users from intrusion. Surely, the failure of others to employ such protection was a factor which contributed to, and therefore mitigated, the intrusion?
Gordon Brown's rather unpleasant attempt to clamber onto the anti-Murdoch bandwagon has rightly been denounced, but why has there been no fightback by the media, to justify and defend journalistic investigation of all Brown's affairs, both public and private?
Is it not right that every aspect of a prime minister's life should be examined in minute detail? Is it not right that the public should know if there are factors in his private life that might hamper his ability to govern? Brown can say all he likes about "criminal elements" digging into his privacy but is it not for the common good that his bank accounts and tax affairs have been scrutinised, to ensure that there is no impropriety?
The matter of his child's illness required more sensitivity than the NoW was ever able to muster, but there is nonetheless a strong argument that it should have been in the public domain, as it affected Brown's ability to govern. Who is to find out these sometimes awkward details and present them to the public, if not journalists?
The hacking affair is remarkable in that the celebrities and politicians who wish to benefit from media coverage, but also control it, are being allowed to do so. And it is doubly extraordinary that this is happening with scarcely a whimper from the media. It does not help, of course, that the "but everyone was doing it" argument will not work only a year after the media denounced all politicians who tried the same line in defence of their outlandish expenses claims. It also did not help that, until last weekend, there was typically little else to write about at this time of year. And it does not help that the police force senses its own mortality and is desperate to do something to win back credibility.
But this is more than just a silly season story. The rest of the media have the scent of blood in their snouts and show no signs of mercy. We have lost one of the oldest newspapers in the country, a part of British life for more than a century and a half. The most powerful media magnate in the world has been panicked into a bizarre and unedifying retreat, so irrational that he has committed the cardinal business sin of sacrificing the brand in favour of the people ? and then been forced to ditch the people anyway. And now the hunt is expanding beyond the boundaries of News International.
Instead of defending their wayward sibling, Britain's journalists handed it to the wolves. It looked to an outsider like an act of cowardice and treachery. I know for certain that other newspapers in other media groups have, directly or indirectly, used the same investigative tactics. If or when that emerges, giving ammunition to the growing censorship lobby, journalists will bitterly regret their disloyalty.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/26/phone-hacking-celebrities-politicians
Than Shwe Aung San Suu Kyi Yulia Tymoshenko Elizabeth Windsor Queen Elizabeth II
No comments:
Post a Comment