Entertainment For Lively Minds
Hacking and hypocrisy
I detect a whiff of hypocrisy around the current scandal.
To be absolutely clear, I condemn the illegal and immoral methods NoW used to obtain information and stories. I utterly deplore and am dismayed at the corruption in our police force, members of whom have sold information to NoW. And I'm sorry for the innocent staff at all levels and positions who have been sacrificed to protect others.
But every week, some 2 million people were more than happy to shell out their cash to read sensationalist stories about bonking footballers and ‘heartbroken’ tarts while looking at fuzzy photo’s of celebrity bosoms snapped from a distance while on private holidays. Did anyone care to ask how the people whose lives were tarnished by NoW felt? Or their families? Or (perhaps) to ask how NoW came to get hold of these stories? Nope.
Did they ask if this stuff was really important? More important than a global economic crisis, starvation in Africa, homelessness, an obesity epidemic etc etc. Or even if it really contributed much, if at all, to the general public good?
And what about our politicians? Gordon Brown (who was worried about the possibility of an economic crash, to the point where he did nothing) has now said he was also worried about the behaviour of some of our press, to the point where he did nothing. Aren’t they all wise after the event?
The truth of the matter seems to me that NoW has got away with it by pandering to the public’s lowest common denominator taste, while entering into a Faustian pact with politicians to give them a forum to publish their views if they play ball.
Look, I’ve exaggerated this. I’m sure NoW has done some good work and employed plenty of good people. But I do find it hard to accept the public outcry when the public was perfectly happy (no questions asked, wink wink, "I made my excuses and left") with the salacious and rather unpleasant product in the first place.
- More from Mark JF.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Public executions
They didn't end in 1868. Just the methods.
Public Interest
What you're saying of course is that NI (and the others) only did it because they sold papers. I don't think anyone thought otherwise.
What it all comes down to is the definition of the public interest. Which of these do the Great British Public believe to be in the public interest?
1. The exposure of companies and people who are involved in fraud or other similar illegal activities (MPs expenses for example)
2. The exposure of politicians or other figures in the public eye who say one thing and do another (John Major's family values for example)
3. The exposure of the private lives of celebrities and well kown individuals (Ryan Giggs etc)
4. The setting up of an individual to say something in a sting (the phony sheik stings for example) that they may be willing to do or sell without evidence that they have done so in the past (Sarah Ferguson for instance)
5. The exposure of private "ordinary" individuals thrown into the news (such as victims of major crimes)
I'd say everyone would be happy with 1 and 2, fewer with 3 and 4 (but would still buy or endorse the paper) and none with 5.
The curtain hiding the Wizard of Oz has been pulled back now, and we can see what really went on, and the extent that the reporters went to and it doesn't wash anymore. Thats's why there's now an outcry.
Also, the bully's on the ropes at the moment so the politicians feel for the first time they can get a kick in without being hit back.
Public interest / public nosiness
has long been an issue, one that the papers are happy to muddy.
The argument as I understand it is
'If we didn't do it, someone else would. Its what people want'. Smells like bullshit to me
THIS.....
They talked to the sister, the father and the mother
With a microphone in one hand and a chequebook in the other
And the camera noses in to the tears on her face
The tears on her face
The tears on her face
You can put them back together with your paper and paste
But you can't put them back together
You can't put them back together
I don't agree
Sure, people bought the NOTW in their droves to read about the latest gossip and whanot. Hardly highbrow, I agree. But they weren't to know that NOTW was using illegal tactics (such as tapping a missing girl's phone) to secure stories, so the accusation of hypocrisy is a bit strong.
I like Greggs sausage rolls. If it emerges that they've been making them out of dead kittens I'll be outraged. And I'd hope nobody would call me a hypocrite.
So the ends justify the means?
Readers shouldn't ask how come a newspaper has private or secret or confidential information so long as they're entertained by the story? And it's OK to hack one person but not another?
Eh?
No, you've misread my point massively. I'll try again later, but I'm going now. Toodle-oo.
Right. Home now, here goes. My point was that the News of the World's readership would've been unaware that stories were being obtained by illegal means, and therefore were buying said rag in good faith. Therefore, to be accused of hypocrisy is a bit strong, to say the least.
Were they really unaware?
Completely? Did they not have the slightest suspicion that tabloid journalists might have come by some of those stories by methods that were, if not illegal, then morally dubious? Does it really take the shift from extremely ethically dubious to illegal to make the readers realise that their paper of choice might not be worth reading any more?
Point already addressed
See below.
Soz
Replied before I'd read the whole thread.
I think its worse than you suggest
"The truth of the matter seems to me that NoW has got away with it by pandering to the public’s lowest common denominator taste, while entering into a Faustian pact with politicians to give them a forum to publish their views if they play ball"
The truth of it is that Rupert has been buying off politicians to further his economic interests and probably like the rest of the country and the rest of the world became complacent riding on the back of all that illusionary affluence.
Now the tide of apparent wealth has rolled back to reveal itself as huge debt - which is all it ever was - then people are feeling like somebody has to be to blame for their changed circumstances. You're right about hypocrisy because people who used to subscribe to the whole massive lie should have been able to see the whole corrupt pile of shite for what it was but people don't WANT to think that way. Especially if it means looking at themselves.
And who better to blame than the most aggressive,ruthless, materialistic group of the lot - the Sun and its diaspora - possibly even more materialistic, vicious and snide than style journalists on the Guardian papers? (if that's even possible)
The politicians of all shades and police will inevitably pile into NI now the dam has burst because their own complicity and hypocrisy is astonishing - maybe they think if they bleat about the awfulness of Voldemurdoch we won't notice.
Mark, I agree with your post
It's a case of simple human decency to question tabloid values.
I know someone who was the subject of an "exclusive" in the Scottish Sun. A thinly veiled story of homophobic drivel dressed up as a public interest story (they are in the public eye) about this person's "tortured hidden life". It was nonsense. This person got paid for the interview, of course. But they must have felt ill when they (and their kids) saw how they were portrayed.
The Greggs analogy above doesn't hold water. It's reasonable to assume that the meat in Greggs food is from traditionally "edible" sources without questioning it. But you're on shaky moral high ground if you've never questioned the motive and source of a "tabloid exclusive".
Agree to disagree
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of NOTW readers would've been blissfully unaware of any illegal activity. In fact, I work with a couple of NOTW readers who knew nothing of the hacking scandal until they picked up their copy on Sunday and learned of its closure.
Not everyone has a subscription to Private Eye, a copy of Flat Earth News by the bed and a Twitter feed packed with media intellectuals. Many people just buy a paper for the news, gossip and sport, and assume that it's all above board.
You may find such people gullible, or ignorant, but it's a bit of a stretch to question their morality.
I think that's absolutely right.
The assumption - especially with the sleb gossip - would have been (if it was thought about at all) that insiders were tipping the hacks off about salacious gossip, or that the slebs in question were doing it all through their PRs to raise their profile. I don't think anyone had a clue they were complicit in anything quite so horrible. I've never read the NOTW in my life, but before hackgate started up months ago, I honestly believed most journalists - even tabloid ones - stayed just the right side of criminal in their scoop-getting. I assumed they mostly knew how to walk that line. Turns out there was no line.
But like I say, I think for most people, the NOTW was a fun, cheeky, gossip rag. I can't imagine they would've given any more thought to the provenance of the stories than most of us do to where our supermarket meat comes from.
Interesting point
particularly with regard to the comparison to supermarket meat. It calls into question the role and responsibility of the individual (how much should we all care and how vigilant should we be in the choices we make every day) but also the role and responsibility of the organisations that feed, clothe, entertain and inform us.
Strictly speaking, any organisation with shareholders would actually be guilty of an offence if they didn't do everything they could that was legal to maximise shareholder return - ethics and morals don't come into it, at least for them. For the individual consumer though, I think ethics and morals should come into it and while these are personal and mutable I'm not necessarily convinced that ignorance, for want of a better word, should let us off the hook. Background information is out there, on just about any business, so a lack of awareness of the more dubious practices doesn't, in my opinion, provide the get out of jail card.
But nobody knew!
Nobody knew how low the hacks were sinking! No amount of research by a layperson could've revealed the level of unpleasantness here.
You're right
Nobody knew just how awful they were and just how despicable their actions were. But surely we "knew" that they were probably a bit dodgy? That they routinely published stuff that was untrue, that turned people over, all in the service of furthering a political agenda handed down by the media owners while simultaneously lining their pockets by pandering to the baser interests of their readers?
I know this sounds like I've occupied the moral high ground here, and I should point out that I read the Sun and NOTW every time I was at the parental home, and, in the interest of full disclosure, would also read the copy of Heat that seemed to find its way into our house every two weeks. So I'm as guilty as anyone who read these papers and supported their businesses. I suppose my point is that I'm not now trying to claim that no-one had any inkling at all until a few days ago that perhaps these papers (and I'm not limiting this to the NOTW) weren't the white-hatted champions of free speech and the working man that they claimed to be.
I agree, ceepee
and I don't really feel ashamed about occupying the moral high ground here.
I simply don't believe that "nobody knew" the depths to which tabloid journalism could sink. Scratch the surface of any tabloid gossip story and all you see is sensationalism (or a cheeky photo) dressed up as "the public interest". It's a no-brainer to conclude that anyone making money out of peddling nonsense like this would also be amoral enough to break the law where it suited them.
I don't like tabloids. You can probably tell.
Well, let me reassure you
I didn't know the depths to which tabloid journalism could sink. Nor did most of the population, judging by the reaction to the Milly Dowler revelations.
Fair enough
Reading my comments above, I sound as if I am speaking from a very high horse. But I'll let my comments stand.
I suppose I just don't have much faith in human nature. Too much exposure to the Sun can do funny things to you.
Don't get me wrong...
...I never thought the tabloids were nice, or right, or A Good Thing. I knew they probably did dodgy, morally iffy stuff to get stories. I just didn't know that they were comfortable with routinely committing crimes to get them.
Everyone knows they were always a bit dodgy. But there's a world of difference between "a bit dodgy" and the full reality.
"...before hackgate started
"...before hackgate started up months ago, I honestly believed most journalists - even tabloid ones - stayed just the right side of criminal in their scoop-getting. I assumed they mostly knew how to walk that line."
So, are you saying that you no longer believe that "most" journalists are honest in the way they go about earning a crust? It's worth bearing in mind that there are far more people working for weeklies and dailies up and down the country, motivated by nothing more than enhancing the lives of those people who still read them, than in the Street of Shame.
I condemn utterly anyone who uses the chequebook, the back-hander and the private eye to invade and degrade the lives of the innocent for political or prurient ends. But I reject entirely the view that "Journalists, they're all the same."
In the end, I fear that this tainting of an entire profession will be one of the biggest hangovers left behind by this particular episode.
"So, are you saying..." etc.
Nope.
Glad to hear it...
...though that was how it read!
Just thinking aloud....
....but 2M copies a week (as I understood the circulation at the end), so assuming 2 people per household read it, ballpark 4M people. With 60-odd million people in the UK, meaning about somewhere less than 6-7 per cent of the population *might* have even been interested, let alone condoned it. Less than 1 in 10.
Kind of like the concern about the amount of weight given to the right wing opinions of Murdoch's rags and TV outlets like Fox News and what was referred to as the 'angry white male' demographic, a minority but a noisy one.
I agree with the OP
Fact is, we simply don't need to know a lot of this personal info, whether it's seeing someone's cellulite or boobs on a beach, or knowing their children's health records. We do need an independent fourth estate to challenge authority, expose corruption and wrongdoing, but this is hardly 'investigative journalism'.