Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Hackgate: Does the public give a toss?

Five-Centres's picture

Received wisdom tells us the public at large are generally not bothered about media stories. But of course, this is now not just about the media. It goes far deeper than that.

But still, do you think people at large actually care what happens to Murdoch or Rebekah Brooks?

Do you?

1

No

This sort of thing is fascinating to people with an interest in politics and the media, but I doubt the man in the street gives a toss. Nobody's mentioned it in my office.

0
Spartacus Mills | 19 July 2011 - 2:32pm

We can talk of nothing else

It being a magazine, and with a lot of former News Corp staff (me included) working here. But I would imagine us and places like us are the exception.

0
Five-Centres | 19 July 2011 - 2:36pm

In my office

which is a mix of people many quite young but in working class area it's not been mentioned and today we've talked about, red bull being made from bull semen, eating McNuggets dipped in McFlurries, where to hole up during a zombie invasion (the loft is better than the cellar), whether strippers should hand out nectar points, the qualities of knock off fags, pay day, the rain, child rearing, the thunder, our boss, the original sound track to the animated film of Transformers and Rhianna. But high level corruption nope. Doesn't mean it not important to people just no one seems to have brought it up.

1
Chris G | 19 July 2011 - 8:49pm

Yes!

Yes, it's important and fascinating stuff! Who is this, "man in the street" you speak of? To quote Mr Vicious...."I've met the man in the street, and he's a c****"

0
jonnyartist | 19 July 2011 - 11:11pm

Whisper it.....

.....,and this might change with Steptoe & Son and the ginger lady, but the police stuff on now is really, really dull.
Don't tell anyone in the meeja.
I'm listening to Tubby Hayes instead.

Perhaps the whole process should be more like the trials in 'Witchfinder General'.....much more fun and a good way to promote our ailing farming industry as the increase in sales of tomatoes and vegetables past their sell by date would go through the roof.

0
ranger | 19 July 2011 - 2:44pm

twitter feed

If you believe my twitter timeline then everybody is interested. But as SM says, nobody's mentioned it where I work.

I'm completely fascinated. I also think that people dismissing it are missing the longer lasting and reaching effects of all of this. At the least we are likely to see goverment attempting to introduce tighter reins on the media, potentially removing it's teeth, and that's never a good thing. It has the potential to unseat the current goverment, as well as pulling all sorts of people from past goverments down with it.

And it's also doing a good job of distracting people from the problems with the economy that are continuing to bubble under - seen much of Osborne lately? No me neither.

It isn't just about what Murdoch and his companies have been getting up to with politicians and police, this is about how the country has been governed. People got up in arms about expenses, but then that's easy to quantify isn't it. Somebody who is earning 20k a year from their job looking at somebody claiming that amount back in the same year in expenses, for things like a sofa for their second home and private cars to take them back there after work. That kind of thing is easy to see on a small level. This is like looking at a world. So people ignore. But I think they do so at their own peril.

0
SimonL | 19 July 2011 - 2:48pm

compared to ...

... the stuff about MPs expenses (as discussed on another thread), this topic barely registers with the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

It's the only story in town for the Beeb, of course, and it was amusing to hear that parasitical windbag Kinnock entering the fray (on the Today programme) with his calls to 'regulate' the press. By 'regulation' he clearly means the suppression of views that he would consider inconvenient.

Now I understand why he would have a grudge against Lord Voltemort after the way the Sun ridiculed him while he was Labour leader, but ... it kind of proves that their hard editorial line on Kinnock was the correct one to take.

1
DC Eisenhower | 19 July 2011 - 2:56pm

Irrelevant now

The Sun hasn't really swung an election now for over a decade. And in 2010, Murdoch wanted a Conservative government, but that's not what the public did. I think there's a bit of opportunism in that politicicans realise that his clout is starting to wane anyway, and this particular lake of shit gives them ample chance to settle some old scores.

Here in my workplace (a university) people are interested, and for many reasons; some of these are connected to the wider damage it will do Cameron (who's just has his "Iraq" moment) and the coalition in general

0
illuminatus | 19 July 2011 - 3:02pm

Regulatory structures for the press

don't mean suppressing press freedoms, it means bringing the press into the same line of accountability as the broadcast and wider media institutions.
Broadcasting organisations seem to do OK in investigations and are held accountable when the public watchdogs deem it necessary. Given the widespread bias you see in the BBC, then newspapers should not fear losing the freedom to editorialise should regulation become a reality.
And, as a story which has ensnared the Prime Minister, his chancellor, two governments, several upper echelons of the police, the biggest news organisation in a criminal legal case, it has to be investigated.
The issue of media ownership and power is also central to most pluralistic democracies and has been since the second world war. I don't care whether it is Murdoch or Chairman Mao, if they have too much power, it should be curtailed. Even the American model allows for that.
If a news organisation is seen to be institutionally corrupt, even in only 1% of its business, then it is only right to ask if it is a fit and proper organisation to own (what was) 40% of the newspapers (on circulation) and a hefty swathe of broadcast channels.
I can see why this may be seen by many on the right as a triumphalist schadenfreude-gasm from a left going after the hated Rupe as payback for Wapping and Thatcher.
This issue should transcend political alignment or ideology, and, in the end, it doesn't matter whether the man on the Clapham Omnibus is talking about it or not.
It's a criminal case that goes right to the PM's office and, as such, it has to be given the coverage it is, because it threatens whatever semblance of democratic accountability we have left.

0
PaddyH | 19 July 2011 - 10:48pm

Thanks

... for the considered post. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

I'm not disputing that it's a big story. I'm certainly following it with a great deal of interest and understand just how serious some of these connections are. There are folk who deserve to be hung, drawn and quartered and I'm confident that will happen.

But I'd much rather the focus was on personal misbehaviours (and subsequent punishments) than on encouraging our wretched political class to introduce knee-jerk legislation against the body that has a good track record in calling them to account.

I agree with you when say that "this issue should transcend political alignment or ideology", but I'd suggest that we're a million miles from that ideal position. Your excellent term 'schadenfreude-gasm' accurately captures what -to a great extent- is going on.

I also think that the views (or non-views) of the man on the Clapham Omnibus should be taken into account. He or she buys newspapers, or subscribes to TV channels, on the basis of whether or not they are good products. It's a strictly commercial relationship and any 'power' that accrues on the part of the service provider is merely a necessary by-product of their ability to provide an excellent service to huge numbers of consumers. Newscorp's commercial success seems to cause a great deal of pain and anguish to a lot of folk. I would regard that as rather a waste of nervous energy.

You mention the 'bias' I see at the BBC. In Mark Thompson's 'New Statesman' article last year, he said: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality."

I'd wager that those in charge at the time would have flatly denied that there was any bias going on, just as Mr Thompson would deny any accusation of bias today. We may have discussed this before, but I'll reiterate my view that what often goes on at the BBC is actually worse than bias; it's a complete inability to understand that there is a legitimate worldview that doesn't subscribe to their various articles of faith on, for instance, the EU, catastrophic man-made climate change, multiculturalism etc.

It's a bit of a double whammy, of course, that many of the folk who are legally obliged to fund the BBC are then labelled as 'ignorant' or 'prejudiced' for not subscribing to their prevailing orthodoxies.

As 'powerful' as Lord Voldemort is, he ain't as powerful as that ;)

1
DC Eisenhower | 20 July 2011 - 9:23am

utter bollocks

sorry...but that's bollocks..
or a good reason to stay off the "clapham omnibus"...which was upgraded to a low rise hopper with disabled access ten years back..blimey it's political correctness gone mad etc..
it's perfectly ok for the agenda of the ownership to be rammed down our throats though..
kinnock was a politician..his agenda was pretty evident...

how this proves they (sun, murdoch, whoever) were right (as opposed to revealing yr own opinions) is beyond me..
what next..the belgrano deserved it? miners were scum? liverpool fans rob the dead?
if st francis of assisi had been labour leader they would have crucified him too...

1
drilltime | 21 July 2011 - 2:46am
Richard Lowe | 21 July 2011 - 8:30am

re. 'utter bollocks'

You have obviously given this a lot of thought.

2
DC Eisenhower | 21 July 2011 - 9:30am

sarcasm?

as concerns their backing of new labour...in what way does that undermine my point? if pedantry is yr bag (and there is a fair chance if yr male and here) then i should have added "in 1992" as an appendage to the term "labour leader" in that particular sentence.

i certainly have given it a good deal more thought than the latest round of re-issues propping up the corpse of rock..

0
drilltime | 21 July 2011 - 9:23pm

...and the police

I find it fascinating and I have no media/newspaper/political/police background. And I am loving right now the drama of these Select Committee meetings and I loved Panorama last night and would urge anyone to watch that on iPlayer if they missed it.

This could be the beginning of the end for Cameron, so that's intriguing in itself. It certainly is the end for many senior policemen, Brooks, Coulson, Fedorcio and Murdoch's influence in the UK.

0
kb | 19 July 2011 - 3:05pm

Last night's Panorama

was the best one that has aired for absolutely ages.

And it made me think rather more fondly of both Ross Kemp and Max Moseley.

3
illuminatus | 19 July 2011 - 5:53pm

seconded

'Shut up, you homophobic cow,' indeed.

0
Vorgongod | 19 July 2011 - 5:57pm

Well I'm the public and I care

If you look back on the last decade of politics and see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the financial crisis, the influence that one media baron had over Labour and Tory politicians and so ad infinitum on, then to see someone *finally* being held to account in a meaningful way is deeply important ... This is not just a bunch of lefties and media types going cuckoo about one Australian with a flag of convenience passport...

13
Glenbervie | 19 July 2011 - 3:09pm

I agree with the last poster

People were genuinely shocked and sickened by the Milly Dowler revelations and it was a topic of conversation for many. At the gym last week, a stranger struck up a conversation with me on the basis that "Had I heard that Brooks woman had resigned, don't know how she managed to stick it out so long".

I'm not suggesting it's the only issue people are talking about, but it has a wider relevance and interest than just some media and political types

2
Humphrey Plugg | 19 July 2011 - 3:30pm

I care...

...Murdoch has submerged the world in a tide of toxic sludge for decades, turning a blind eye to all sorts of crappy deeds committed in the name of profit and Murdoch, not to mention creating a climate in which unpleasant pipsqueak wannabes like Richard Desmond can thrive, and I hate him and all his works. I for one simply can't wait for him and his hard-eyed offspring to hit the skids. Now, anybody know what the Daily Mail's been up to?

7
mikethep | 19 July 2011 - 3:48pm

Clueless MPs

Watching the Murdoch grilling.
It's pretty clear that these MPs haven't the faintest idea how large businesses are run.
It's like Tony Wadsworth being grilled in detail about where Alex James bought his bass guitar strings and how much they cost, or whether he got freebies from Fender.

1
Richard Lowe | 19 July 2011 - 4:09pm

Yes

Some of those guys were embarrassing and literally wasting their time and opportunity. JM and RM have responded well I think.

1
kb | 19 July 2011 - 4:42pm

Tom Watson

Was excellent. He refused to let Junior take over and was focused. The rest were hopeless.

0
fortuneight | 21 July 2011 - 9:41pm

The guy throwing the custard pie.....

......has put back access to the media and free speech back ten years.
Great excuse for such sessions to be held behind closed doors in future or not even taking place.
Well done, mate, you're a real brick.

2
ranger | 19 July 2011 - 4:59pm

Well, it's contempt of Parliament.

With a bit of luck they will get the book well and truly thrown at them.

Anyway. I'm looking forward to listening to RB's performance, after the Murdochs left her well and truly in it.

0
itfc1959 | 19 July 2011 - 5:07pm

Has he been taken into custardy?

Apparently he's a comedian called Jonnie Marbles. Expect him to enter the Celebrity Big Brother house in three week's time.

0
Five-Centres | 19 July 2011 - 5:14pm

Again the police cover themselves in glory

Once again the police cover themselves in glory. Did you see the tubby PC plod moving ever-so-slowly, but as quickly as he was able, to apprehend the guy who had already been grabbed by Murdoch's (female) companions.

0
kb | 19 July 2011 - 5:53pm

James Murdoch was apparently

critical of the policeman. "Don't we pay you enough?" was his reaction

5
Humphrey Plugg | 19 July 2011 - 6:25pm

"We"

The revelations have come so thick and fast throughout this that I've developed indignation fatique, but the thing that piqued me most finally came today.

Who is this "we" that Murdoch Sr twice claimed to be part of today? He's not been part of our "we" since he upped sticks and left for the USA in 1983, and that, as much as anything, has really pissed me off.

0
Pax Romana | 19 July 2011 - 9:33pm

Was he ever part of "We"?

He was an Australian before he was American I think. He's never professed even any great liking for the British as far as I can tell.

One of the great mysteries to me of Murdoch's rise, is that it was allowed to happen in a country as Xenophobic as Britain in the 1960's ans 70's was.

0
BernkastelCues | 20 July 2011 - 9:31am

Murdoch isn't really American

He has merely claimed American citizenship, in the mid-80s as I recall, in order to make easier certain arrangements re: ownership of multiple TV stations, and (non-) payment of tax due.

0
PhilC | 20 July 2011 - 2:08pm

and the mp

sitting at the end of the row maybe three feet away who just sat and stared but did nothing to intervene - nothing to do with me, i'm not getting involved was written all over him!

0
bargepole | 19 July 2011 - 6:34pm

Maybe

he'll get 16 months and provide a few chuckles for Charlie Gilmour in their cell

0
jimmyshoes01 | 19 July 2011 - 8:29pm

I care..

This will have a lasting impact on public life in Britain, hopefully for the better.

with a bit of luck some of these smug articles who were arrogant enough to think they could exercise unelected power over Blighty indefinitely will go to prison.

0
BernkastelCues | 19 July 2011 - 5:16pm

The tables have turned?

That Murdoch is now a sympathy figure as a result of a donkey attempting to throw a custard pie at the old geezer, and that his wife decked the donkey- is a development of true interest.

A very competent defense from the two Murdochs:

Their defense is that they knew nothing. Apparently the only contact these two had, was that Murdoch (Senior) would phone the editors of each paper (sun NOTW, Sunday Times) maybe once a week or month, and ask "how is it going?" All operational matters were the responsibility of any one of these Editors. Each Editor is merely given a "pamphlet" describing the ethical, and legal standpoint of the Company.

The Elaborate Hanging Basket is now on ...

1
Marky | 19 July 2011 - 5:45pm

Nicky Campbell

is jumping on the Elaborate Hanging Basket bandwagon.

On Five Live he has just described Brooks as having "hair the lead singer of a prog rock band would kill for. She's like Robert Plant with henna".

0
mojoworking | 20 July 2011 - 9:50am

Nicky Campbell - is he still working!

There really is no justice in the world. I still prefer the classic "John Sergeant peering out from beneath an elaborate hanging basket." Maybe with a wide-eyed, sexually suggestive, "trust me" look on his face.

Copious apologies for creating that image.

0
Marky | 20 July 2011 - 2:56pm

of course

the man in the street is interested to an extent into possible police/journalistic/parliamentry corruption.
but he's a lot more interested in other more pressing issues, eg no pay rise again this year, continuing rising petrol, electricity and gas prices, how much it's going to cost to put the kids through uni, how long he's going to have to work now till he can retire - and how much of his pension will be left when he gets there.

1
bargepole | 19 July 2011 - 6:38pm

and The Apprentice

1
badartdog | 19 July 2011 - 6:47pm

I did hear

Richard Madeley in conversation yesterday with Nina Myskow say that Hackergate was "...our version of the Arab Spring."

I think the point was that it was the people vs the establishment, but comparing the two seemed a little dramatic, so off went the radio!

0
milkybarnick | 19 July 2011 - 8:21pm

The public have been

happy enough to buy the papers long enough. Its sad to realise how few people realise that the papers effectively run the country by the very nature of setting the agenda and that people are interested in some of the unimportant stuff that makes the headlines. Didnt listen to much of the murdoch as they ran rings around the MP's and the questioning was so, for want of a better word, crap. just proved how out of touch they are, especially as they can now look high and mighty. On the positive side hopefully people will realise quite how dire the tabloid papers generally are and to be honest the rest of the media at times for following their lead.

0
daddyclark | 19 July 2011 - 8:52pm

Fully paid-up

non-media civilian and member of the public here, giving a toss.

2
Adman | 19 July 2011 - 9:47pm

Yep. Anyone who doesn't "give a toss"

...is surely a bit thick. Since there's a great deal at stake.

2
Marky | 19 July 2011 - 10:28pm

Me too...

...I care. This has been a very long time coming. Murdoch's tabloid papers have been a disgrace for decades, directly influencing the outcome of elections and printing poisonous rubbish which has hurt and damaged a lot of people.

0
mojoworking | 20 July 2011 - 9:59am

First thing discussed

this morning by my delegates on a training course. They come from Saudi, Kuwait and Nigeria. So, I think we can say international interest. (We then used News International as a case study - first time I have found them useful rather than hateful)

0
paulwright | 20 July 2011 - 2:41pm

People who invoke "the man in the street"

are very often entirely wrong about his opinion.

(I suspect)

0
man.of.soup | 20 July 2011 - 3:18pm

Possibly

But I still believe that only people interested in politics and / or the media are interested in 'hackgate'. Most people aren't bothered - most people don't vote or buy papers.

Go to any high street in Britain and ask a random selection of passersby for their opinion on Rebekah Brooks. I'd wager that most wouldn't know who she was.

1
Spartacus Mills | 20 July 2011 - 3:30pm

Crikey - are those the ones ..

.. with a sealed plastic bag over their heads?

0
Marky | 20 July 2011 - 3:37pm

Nope

Just those who don't read papers, don't watch the news and don't spend any time in the blogosphere. A sizeable demographic, despite what you lot seem to think.

1
Spartacus Mills | 20 July 2011 - 3:46pm

Aren't the sort of people...

...we seem to be talking about here the ones who buy and read Murdoch papers in vast numbers? Just asking...

0
mikethep | 20 July 2011 - 3:50pm

Erm...

Not in my case. I'm talking about people who don't buy papers, as I've said.

0
Spartacus Mills | 20 July 2011 - 3:52pm

Point taken...

...but so what? Just because millions of people aren't interested in something, that doesn't make it unimportant. You could probably say the same about climate change.

(Gets coat, dons tin hat, runs for cover...)

0
mikethep | 20 July 2011 - 4:03pm

So what?

I never said it was unimportant. I was just answering Five-Centre's question about whether the general public were interested in the fate of Murdoch & Brooks. I think most people probably aren't.

1
Spartacus Mills | 20 July 2011 - 4:05pm

Yes where you would have NOT heard about this story?

The only place in the world would be the American equivalent - FOX "News" (bizarre and surreal Murdoch owned propaganda outlet). The entire scandal was almost completely unreported, and not mentioned on there for weeks.

Although in all fairness yesterday, just after they worked out the Murdochs were doing OK, they decided to start to live stream the enquiry. Which tells us all something I think.

0
Marky | 20 July 2011 - 4:05pm

Need to draw a distinction

between people being aware of the story and being interested in it!

0
bargepole | 20 July 2011 - 5:54pm

Re-assessment

I must admit, I've had my mind changed about all this. Whilst I don't condone his actions, upon review of the facts, a custodial sentence seems harsh, let alone a 16 month stretch.

0
Spartacus Mills | 20 July 2011 - 5:58pm

They've given Murdoch

16 months in chokey? huzzah!

1
badartdog | 20 July 2011 - 7:15pm

Ha!

I wondered why I had to 're-post' in the other thread. Doh.

0
Spartacus Mills | 20 July 2011 - 7:20pm

A Word Exclusive

A previously unseen photo of the Old Man and Poindexter at yesterday's hearing.

2
mojoworking | 21 July 2011 - 1:40am

a lot of Australians

are enjoying seeing rupert squirm-couldn't happen to a nicer bloke type thing

but as for the discussion re the hacking not much interest. Opinions of journalists are low at the best of times.

For mine, I am surprised /impressed at the succession of falling on swords - they'd have to blast em out down here.

0
Junior Wells | 21 July 2011 - 4:40am

Sky News Australia

has been tying itself in knots over this. Last night we saw a succession of NI-employed pundits telling us how well Rupert and Junior came across at the hearing. Apparently the Murdochs were clearly telling the truth when they said they knew nothing about nothing. No question about that.

Another thing the pundits were all agreed on was this: It was an absolute disgrace that an 80 year-old man should suffer the indignity of a shaving foam pie in the face. Even more of a disgrace than all this phone hacking business added together, it seems.

The sympathy for the Dirty Digger was palpable.

0
mojoworking | 21 July 2011 - 5:03am

The Prime Minister clearly gives much more than a toss

Without being too smart-arse about it, perhaps that ought to tell you its potential significance.

And it could be the ruination of Piers Moron! How much more incentive do you need :-)

1
FakeGeordie | 22 July 2011 - 1:30pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd