Entertainment For Lively Minds
News Of The World & Milly Dowler: So What Happens Now?
Posted by Five-Centres on 4 July 2011 - 5:38pm.
It's without doubt a new low. Not only hacking into her messages but deleting one of them, seriously hampering the police investigation.
Heads of course should roll. But will they?
- More from Five-Centres.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I do hope so!
I sense a collective wish, and perhaps will, to hold the NotW to account over the whole issue. Sadly, I worry that some may have motives that relate more to a pursuit of Rupert and his Evil Empire, rather than to obtaining some form of justice for those affected.
Yes
The boycott Murdoch products barmy army are out in force on Twitter.
That will only serve...
...to muddy the waters. The real issue is how far are the police prepared to go - and will they be allowed to go anywhere at all. Given the BSkyB decision, one senses that the coalition will be reluctant to piss Ripert off.
Barmy indeed
as if you lot would ever give up paying through the nose for one source of televised football.
It would be nice
if you could resist a pop at the English in a thread about a how a newspaper has allegedly behaved appallingly in its desperation to report first in a story of a missing and murdered schoolgirl.
I think our American friend has a point here
the only decent thing to do in this case IS to cancel Sky (if you have it). The only way the likes of Murdoch will take any notice is when their bank balance is hit. However, I fear MyAmericanMate is right here, can't let ANYTHING mess with the footie can we?
It was a pop at slavish devotion
to virtual monopoly on a televised sport regardless of the politics, practices or policies of the company that feed your (sorry, one's) mindless and insatiable consumption. Got football on tv? Stay happy.
I was unaware that was a strictly 'English' concern. Thanks for the heads up. Won't make that mistake again.
Mistakes
I'm probably making one now by even responding. The English Premier League is the football that most Sky subscribers are subscribing for. And most subscribers are English.
The point I was trying to make was that I thought it would have been in much better taste to make your generally caustic opinions about the UK populace in a different thread to this one.
Mistakes
you've made a few. Had anyone with a name you take less of a visceral objection to than mine made my original point (and some below have), you would have seen it for what it was; a comment about bovine passivity in the face of highly objectionable policies and practices. But you played the race card.
whereas
Calling "you lot" "bovine" is - what?
Clearly aimed at
sofa glued slack jawed glass teet sucklings. Who care little for consequences of questionable politics so long as the endless hours of quality programming and sport streamed directly to their homes remain uninterrupted.
Clearly.
check your original post
It's exactly the kind of sweeping generalisation about 'you lot' which you accuse everyone else of.
Nope, sorry Cap'n Dave
With 'you lot', I referred to Sky sports subscribers (of which it appears there are many here) and not to every English and I cannot find the huge leap you would have had to have made to get there.
Were the tables turned, this would the the place where someone not unlike yourself would barge in and ungraciously point out a lack of sense of humour and how it was all ironical and all that. But the tables aren't turned. For your own reason, you misread my post.
Gentlemen...
MAM: you created a rod for your own back with many of your early contributions to this website, so please don't be surprised if people mis-read your intentions, especially if you use ambiguous phrases such as "you lot" as opposed to, say, "Sky Sports subscribers", if that was what you meant. Everyone here has a responsibility to ensure they're understood, and I'm sure you have no wish to be misunderstood - just as using phrases like "every English" will only serve to ensure that people continue to react to your posts in ways they might not do with others.
Captain, Leedsboy, anyone else who knows me: I'd appreciate it if you didn't base your reactions to current posts on what I consider to be ancient history. Otherwise we'll never move on. Thanks.
I'm not surprised
if people misread my my intentions. However I'm not as convinced this misinterpretation is quite so firmly rooted in previous posts (as I have, well, previously posted, in this very thread). My level of ambiguity seems fairly average for the content here. Still, gladly the cross-eyed bear, and all. I guess I need to be clearer than most.
What's wrong
with saying "you lot"?
I pay money to Murdoch to watch football so presumably "you lot" also includes me.
Yet I couldn't be less offended by the term (or as the Americans might say, "I could care less" ;-))
Isn't this just part of an ongoing vendetta?
apparently so
Sorry, you lot, I'm out of line
The point I made was
that you made a comment that I felt was supercilious (as is your want and right) in a thread that was, in my opinion, not an appropriate subject matter to make that point in. That's all. I felt the need to make that point.
I wouldn't read too much into my name either. I'm neither from Leeds or a boy anymore. I also do not follow football with bovine passivity.
And the point I tried to make was
that I found what appeared to me to be your hand wringing distress over the fragile state of the nation at this difficult time particularly in the face of someone who, by dint of name alone, has no place or right to comment, misplaced.
The actions of News of the World have a direct correlation with Sky. Particularly now. Sky is nothing if not political and much of those politics are highly suspect within a free and impartial society. Subscribing to Sky is also a political statement. One that any person is free to make.
So how is it not 'appropriate' to comment on the passive support of an organisation engaged in despicable, unconscionable, immoral and, we can only hope, highly illegal acts? Huh?
Agreed
every liberal leftie likes to chortle at Dumbo Fox News. If Newspeak Corp has its avowed way that is what's going to happen to Sky News. The decision to ignore the iniquities and just say "I'm only watching sport" is as much a political decision as boycotting Sky and The Sun.
Agreed
very strongly with this
To My American Mate
I should just like to apologise for (some of) my compatriots' touchiness.
Please don't apologise on my behalf
I'd like to second that emotion
and/or apology.
MyAmericanMate's point was completely valid (Murdoch has Britain by the balls with his ownership of televised football) yet once again we see the default aggressive response to MAM's every post.
I felt that the comment relating to you lot
was a dig. My objection was that it was used in a thread about a murdered schoolgirl and the media's appalling behaviour in the reporting of the case. Maybe I am oversensitive to this case. But I would have respected him more if he had not used this thread to make a point about the sheeplike (or cowlike) tendencies of football fans in the UK.
And btw, I do not subscribe to Sky Sports.
I think it's a
bit 'Daily Mail histrionics' to ask that certain threads are treated with a certain amount of respect and that other topics become taboo because of their content. The best threads go off on all kinds of tangents that open up the debate in to a wider and more interesting space. It's these tangents that can make people look at the subject matter in a previously unthought of way and enriches this forum.
Tangents I don't mind
But I felt that a recurring theme that's at best a lazy stereotypical viewpoint has been reintroduced by the post. It was this part that I felt was inappropriate for the thread. Its a personal view based upon my personal feelings on this particular case. The shame is, I think the point behind the invective is a good one and one I agree with.
"Lazy stereotypical viewpoint"
There can be no lazier stereotypical viewpoint than to label our transatlantic cousins in the way that so many do, including some public personae who would otherwise present themselves as left-leaning liberals. How many times each week do we see them trot out the old favourite cliches - all Americans are fat, arrogant, ignorant, right-wing, god-bothering, non-passport-holding ultra-patriotic bigots, etc.)? I do have transatlantic cousins, by the way, none of whom conform to the description of Americans force-fed to our TV-viewing, not-only-red-top-reading nation, though I am a (not particularly proud) Englishman, born and bred.
Getting back to the subject in hand. As a former journalist who now feels little but contempt for the print media we have today, of course heads should roll. But they very rarely do.
Don't forget
that old stand-by - they don't get irony. Apparently.
But if you want to see and hear the full range of anti-American xenophobic invective, look no further than Top Gear (the TV show and the even-worse-if-that's-possible spin-off magazine).
Oh FFS....
How precious is this blog getting? Who gives a toss whether our Yankee friend was having a sly dig (I don't believe he was THIS time) I've seen enough of the same go the other way over the years
We're all grown ups here, do we have to winge every time we read something we don't 100% agree with?
I don't agree
with this.
;)
Sorry to be flippant. Another classic example of a Word thread kick-started by an emotive subject where everyone, without exception, is rightly incensed by the revelations of the last 24 hours but rather than come together as one voice have decided to fight amongst themselves to exercise their right-on-ness and to prove that it's they who have reached the highest ground of liberal consensus.
Just so I'm not misunderstood: Your conscience is between you and your conscience. I don't judge people by what they read, by what they watch or by what they buy. If I did that I'd have to change my name to God (or for the secularists, Big Brother).
Sentimental nonsense
He was responding to a point about boycotting Sky. What he said was perfectly valid. I think what the NOTW have done is a disgrace, but at the same time I'd be reluctant to boycott Sky Sports. I expect a lot of people face a similar dilemma. Your use of the 'Won't someone think of the children?' card to discredit his point is shameful.
Hmm yeah
Ford and nPower.
Them barmy-lefty-Grauniad-reading multinational corporations. What are they like, eh?
Boycotting News International products is not barmy.
It may be somewhat quixotic but it ain't barmy. Not buying products produced by him is the only rational thing an individual can do. If enough individuals do the same then you get a result.
Agreed...
...but the issues here are legal and the right avenue of attack is legal. Commercial, consumer pressure will not hold Rupert to account before the law.
No...
... but if it harms his business fair dos.
Well the Liverpool
boycott post-Hillsborough and a few Student Union bans sure brought him to his knees, didn't it?
I did use words like...
... "quixotic" and "if."
That's a gobshite thing to say.
The S*n is boycotted on Merseyside because of the dreadful lies it printed about Liverpool suupporters in the aftermath of Hillsborough. The papers sales up there are still low 22 years later.
No one really expected the boycott to bring Murdoch to his knees. The fact that we're still discussing it makes it's own point.
Calm down, dear,
just a moment, please, while I scrape your self-righteous ire off my face. I certainly don't need a lecture from yet another self-designated mourner about the impact of Hillsborough. You don't know who I am, or how it affected me.
I wasn't questioning the motives of anyone who boycotted The Sun as an issue of principle, merely stating that it hasn't altered one jot the way that News Int operates, and that they've continued to act with impunity.
If anything, they've got worse, and more self-denying heroic gestures aren't going to slow them down. As the OP of this particular strand pointed out, due process will have a far greater impact.
Sorry, but I find comments like
"Calm down dear", "self-righteous ire", and "self-designated mourner" quite offensive in this context. You're right that I have no idea how Hillsborough may or may not have affected you, but neither have you any idea of how Hillsborough may have affected the poster you sneer at.
For what it's worth, as someone who lives in Liverpool (though not originally from the city and not an LFC fan) and did so at the time of the disaster, I won't buy a News International paper (that includes The Times etc) as a matter of principle, and I avoid Sky wherever possible (we have Virgin TV and I get my footy via ESPN).
The point - as I make in my post immediately below - is that a significant boycott does have an effect (why else would The Sun have "apologised" to the City - in a very mealy mouthed way - in 2004 and have made repeated attempts to increase their circulation in the area without success?)
Provocative
Leaving aside the tone of your message (but I am a LFC fan, so overly sensitive), it could be seen as saying that there is no point in doing anything unless it brings Murdoch to his knees. Saying "there is nothing we can do" is a self-fulfiling mantra.
It is extremely hard to beat Murdoch, but that is no reason not to do the little bit you can to send him a message.
Disappointing
'Calm down, dear' "Self-righteous ire' 'Self-designated mourner' 'Self-denying heroic gestures'.
You're really not doing yourself any favours are you?
Used to be a decent forum this.
It may not have brought him to his knees but
the following quote from Wikipedia might clarify a little:
"..where the paper lost more than three-quarters of its estimated 55,000 daily sales and still sells poorly more than twenty years later (around 12,000).[35] It is unavailable in many parts of the city, as many news agents refuse to stock it..."
The amount of effort the Sun has put into trying to attract a readership back in Merseyside over the last 7-8 years suggests that News International do feel the effects.
well
its worked in liverpool.
poor darts btw Pax.
the way to hit murdoch is thru his pocket. why anyone has skysports in this day and age is beyond me
Do you buy the News of the World?
If not, and I assume not, then what has Sky or The Times got to do with the price of fish, other than their sharing the same majority shareholder?
Isn't tarring all Murdoch-owned product with the same brush used to rightly condemn the practices of Neville Thurlbeck and his chums at the News of the World like boycotting Johnnie Walker Black Label because the same parent company made Thalidomide? Or spurning the entire output of the BBC because you don't much care for the way Jeremy Clarkson talks about Mexicans?
Fair point well made...
It was Richard Hammond who made the Mexican comments though.
But Archie
partly down to a careful PR by News International everyone seems to assume that phone hacking is only limited to NOTW and not the Sun or Times. As if the NOW were unique in this approach and that info wasn't shared across the company. Also these media company's cross subsidize each other so money from sky and NOTW pay for Times etc. If large media orgs want to have multiple outlets (see the Sky expansion) they have to collective responsibility and can't hide behind it was "big boys did it and ran a way" defense as they seem to have done so far.
Yabbut
Isn't the suggestion that footy hack supreme Brian Glanville, occasional Word contributor Caitlin Moran, Hugh Laurie, Danny Boyle, Mickey Rourke and the big-boned gal from Glee all share responsibility for the backstreet Grub Street grubbiness of Thurlbeck & Co. because they all willingly take the Murdoch coin a bit, well, simplistic?
_______
*Glanville and Moran write for The Times, while House and Glee are commissioned by the Murdoch-owned Fox Broadcasting Co., and Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler were produced by the Murdoch-owned Fox Searchlight pictures.
It is
simplistic, but I still lose respect for them.
Add to the above names a certain D. Hepworth of this parish who has recently contributed articles to The Scum - entirely his choice, but I would have a whole lot more respect for DH and others of his ilk if this latest expose pricked their consciences a little.
Nicely put
nicely put torrential 1.
I am a word subscriber, & I really enjoy what comes with it, (something for the weekend, podcast & this site).
HOWEVER, & I am expecting a ton of flak for this, I would like to see less deference to the magazine hierarchy. To me it can sometimes feel smarmy & patronising.
I would imagine that very few of us here actually know them (to be clear, I am reffering to DH & ME), but it can sometimes feels like a love in on here. (To me of course). I am sure if I ever met them I would enjoy the company, but lets see this for what it is, they are businessmen, & we are paying for what they provide.
In the run up to the recent 100th edition, there was a lot of discussion of how wonderful the magazine is (& I totally agree - IMO it is a wonderful magazine).
I rather enjoyed the comment "Its a magazine, its 100 editions, no biggy".
Sorry for any offence, none intended.
Puts on tin hat, assumes a defensive position.
To be fair Jack,....
I think it's only a certain amount of people that are really bad. They seem to regard themselves as a sort of "inner circle" who must protect the magazine from criticism at any cost.
Mind you it's the pathetic upping of any comment from staff that has always somewhat irked me.
Gwan Doug
say "self appointed elite". It always makes us chuckle in our mountain hideaway as we plot the downfall of Q magazine and our next post about that nice Mr Ellen and his shirts
I'm with you on that Jack
There is an unsavoury element in the "Massive" that is far to arslikhan and reverential to the management.
I also concur that there seems to be a self appointed, fair trade coffee drinking, real ale supping, "I like new folk me" ,small home office at the top of the stairs oligarchy setting the taste and acceptability agenda on this board.
They are one and the same. The types who used to get invited at school to the trendy teachers houses for Blue Nun and bad cannabis.
I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonny take it no more.
I thought the self-appointed elite
had all buggered off to Twitter these days? Or is that just where they go to plot the downfall of the next unapproved poster?
There are all sorts on here, some more vocal than others. There is no clique, just regular old-timers who have their opinions and a way of doing things. People disagreeing is not a sign of cliques and cabals, it's just people disagreeing.
The only thing people get pulled up for - and it's called community policing - is personal attacks or things that contravene the FAQ. All else, including the little MAM/Leedsboy spat above, is just disagreement and miscommunication.
No clique?
Boots opticians have some special deals on at the moment.
Fine
If you really want to see this website as having a "them and us", go ahead.
I guess that's where a lot of the recent bickering has come from.
Debate is good, I like it. But when it turns into a bunch of people sniping at each other instead of crossing swords in robust discussion, I find it more tiring than interesting.
When someone feels victimised, they are likely to post in anger and overstep the boundaries of polite debate. It's actually really easy not to get offended if you don't feel that you are already being picked on, excluded or bullied.
So, cliques - I don't see any. You do. Who has the problem?
Are you serious?
There is no 'self-appointed elite' here. Just those who can have a rational discussion without it descending into name-calling, class war and snide remarks, and those who can't.
'Without it descending into name-calling,
class war and snide remarks, and those who can't.'
True
Did you call me
'little MAM'?
It would be better
Than calling you a big Mam. (Smiley thing here)
Vince Packet is a clique infiltrator !!!!
Do not listen to the words that drip from his honeyed lips.. They serve only the middle class,grown man wearing a school satchel diagonally across his chest, Red Brick University educated, dabbled in a band but "nothing serious", have contemplated having an affair with "that guy/woman from Personnel" self satisfied and stifling Massive Clique.
You have been warned.
For once I agree with Archie ;-)
Meanwhile, interesting piece by Adam Curtis on how the BBC has covered its relationship with RM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrai...
Richard Hammond
may have opened the batting on the Mexican business, but make no mistake, the other two bell-ends weren't slow to step up to the crease with all manner of racial slurs of their own.
Mexicans....
The Seth McFarlane, US made "Family Guy" has running gags on Mexicans and other Latino groups, yet is viewed by many as a left leaning arch social commentator.
Family Guy and its sibling shows...
...regarded by this viewer (whose funnybone is fully intact and responsive to all sorts of stimuli) as a pile of smart-ass juvenile rubbish, dressed up/excused as something more significant.
Perhaps.
But I have personally thought that his influence on public life has been corrosive for years. Given that my objections to Murdoch and News Corp is based on them being something approaching a monopoly (and their rather creative tax arrangements) I can't very well subscribe to Sky and buy The Times while deploring The Sun and The NOTW. That strikes me as seriously hypocritical on a personal level.
High- and low-profile businessmen
Rupert Murdoch is a high-profile bast...businessman. Most CEOs of large corporations are low-profile bastards, so we're seldom aware of who really owns what and what crimes and generally reprehensible actions are committed in whose name.
I know what you're saying, GS, but just think that if we were consistent and boycotted everything that's associated through layered shareholdings with every bit of conduct we disapprove of, then our homes, wardrobes and fridges would be pretty bare.
True enough.
I do think that Murdoch is genuinely a special case though.
Special case?
In what sense?
Come now...
Have you not seen Omen III?
He is clearly Damien Thorne.
Ronson
Doesn't jon Ronson's new book make the point that most leading businessmen are psychopaths?
(I'm self employed, so just a little crazed)
I don't boycott Sky.
There's no point, because I feel I'd have to apply that standard right across the board, which is effectively impossible. Sky isn't (yet) owned by NewsCorp - and if this whole hoo-haa does anything, it might at least erode the chances of Murdoch owning it outright. But my main point is this:
Green & Blacks is owned by Kraft.
Seeds Of Change is owned by Mars.
Innocent Smoothies are owned by Coca Cola.
Abel & Cole, the none-more-right on veg delivery business is majority-owned by Lloyds TSB.
Dorset Cereals - a terribly ethical-looking box of which is to be found on every right-thinking Putney shelf - is owned by Nestlé.
Copella apple juice - you know, the expensive, organic, awfully correct cloudy stuff? Yeah, that's made by Pepsi.
Ben & Jerry's - how cute! Two lovely middle-aged tubby cuddly lovelies making ice cream! - is owned by Unilever.
What I'm getting at is that if you start digging into the corporate provenance of almost anything on the supermarket shelves, you will likely find something ugly. Murdoch isn't nice, and neither is his empire, but they're not uniquely horrible, and the horribleness doesn't extend into every brand they own. Hedge funds, for example, probably have a stake in much of what we buy, as do private equity firms. Those are at least as horrid on at least as large a scale as Murdoch, but you don't catch people boycotting everything that Rah, Hooray and Bullingdon Equity LLP have their mitts on.
The only way to avoid lining the pockets of someone horrid is pretty much to grow all your own food and go completely off-grid.
And on the Murdoch thing, as I keep saying, this whole issue of media ethics is much bigger than him and his business.
This is NOT an Either/Or choice though is it?
Ferinstance: as far as I know Coke is not hacking peoples phones and trying to build a monopoly on what I drink. Your argument encourages inertia: "everyone's at it so what's the point of doing anything"
But it's playing their game
Reducing "What's Wrong With The World Today" to the appalling treatment of a single grieving family, while overlooking the many, many cases of corporations ruining not one but thousands of families' lives, ravaging entire communities and even knobbling dozens of third-world nations, is exactly the world view that's perpetuated by the tabloids.
Its alright Archie
the tabloids seem not to have cottoned on to this Milly Dowler story so far. They are concentrating on a Spice Girl squeezing out another sprog or whether or a randy footballer and his popstar wife - are they knobbing or not.
Frankly if that many people buy the NOTW then it speaks volumes on how much the Great British Public really care about press ethics. Give them a bit of sauce about a Z lister and they are fine and go back to sleep
Undeniably true
But I repeat the point I made below, the one about political influence.
Kraft, Nestle, Unilever and Cola don't claim to have swung elections, but News Corp did. "It Was The Sun Wot Won It" apparently. Whether that is true or not (and I know that the support of The Sun did not result in a tory majority in the last election) politicians believe that, hence you have the absolute terror they seem to hold Murdoch's papers in. Which has only resulted in more power for Murdoch.
If media ethics are to be resolved you need to start somewhere. It strikes me that the Murdoch empire is the perfect place to begin.
It's got to be consistent.
I'd be on board with that if I felt there was any intention of applying this outrage consistently and continuously. But no: I think for many people, "getting Murdoch" is the end in itself, and I think that's a mistake.
As for Unilever, Coca Cola, Nestlé and the banks, they might not be claiming to swing domestic elections, but a very shallow dig into their facades soon chucks up some interesting things about their global practices. I won't get into any of that here. But it's at least as interesting as anything NewsCorp gets up to, IMO.
Again true.
But my major point is that you need to start somewhere.
Nick Davis in The Guardian started small on this. Tom Watson has been quietly plugging away for years. Perhaps their motive is simply "get Murdoch" or perhaps it was to begin with, but as more information comes out from more sources (and Lenny's list at the bottom of the page suggests that there is plenty more to come) then the opportunity potentially arises to make a major start on sorting media ethics properly.
Protests can't always be all or nothing, sometimes you can only try to fix what looks possible. Sometimes you go all out. Media ethics as a whole (and the relationship between corporate entities and governments) are too large to fix yet. But Murdoch's influence could potentially be checked which has potentially good ramifications for media at large.
I am stressing potentially here. I can but hope.
Bob, agreed there again
but still, to quote the first commandment of self-assertiveness: "you get more of what you put up with."
I cannot understand
your rousing call to apathy.
'There's no point'? There very much is. As ganglesprocket says 'You need to start somewhere'.
I believe it is about making a difference and I feel that difference is small to the point of negligible but that's how good things grow.
This is a bit depressing
To hear this argument from someone who obviously cares immensely about such issues is a real shame. This isn't intended as a personal dig, it's just that I thought the 'this thing is too big to take a stand' argument was exclusive to people making excuses for apathy, not from people who are actively interested in and exercised by corporate corruption and dishonesty. Your argument implies that individual action is utterly pointless unless it's backed up by a personal crusade; if that's the case why support a homelessness charity if one isn't also supporting every other charity aimed at preventing poverty?
You have to be consistent, yes, but as you say all sorts of rot lies beneath the shiny veneers of any brand name you care to mention. My view is that you choose your battles. If 'Get Murdoch' is something you believe in, then go for it. It's certainly easier to grasp and do something about than 'get ethically dubious media outlets', though if you can recommend a course of action for that, I'm all ears.
Well put UM
one of my favourite quotes:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
It's by Margaret Meade btw.
made me think of
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
It's the myopia that bothers me
Let's say Rebekah Brooks and Neville Thurlbeck are persuaded by a phone call from New York to fall on their swords. Let's even say, in some sort of perfect parallel universe, that The News of the World is shut down. Will that make everything all right again? Will it buggery.
The stonking great woolly mammoth in the room in this thread was posted by Lenny without much comment, and it's this. On at least a hundred and four occasions, at least four reporters at The Observer (i.e., under the auspices of the Guardian Media Group) bought information sourced from phone hacks.
Very mildly inconveniencing Murdoch's advertisers (which is all that, at best, will happen as a result of the current trial by Twitter) will only serve to compound the problem rather than solve it: practically all our news media, across the board, are unethical or corrupt or both.
I don't think it's myopia
I think it's solely a difference of opinion about how to respond.
All responses on here are by and large a reflection of the frustration that people have with how impotent they feel when stories like this emerge.
I don't think people who want to take direct action in some way against NOTW believe that any kind of result "will..make everything all right again" but it might help generate a level of public opinion that galvanises something else to be put in motion by people who can make a more substantive and long-lasting impact on how the media governs itself.
And then again perhaps it won't. But at least the process of direct action might help us to clarify the extent and depth of the broader picture you paint even if it doesn't result in regime change in the media.
To me it just seems that more, not less, truth will out if people in power at any level are made to give an account of themselves even if that account cedes no ground at the ultimate level desired. If we look only at the bigger picture on the horizon for tackling diseases we risk losing sight of the parasites and viral cultures within easy reach.
What he said ^^^^^
Also I did refer to Lenny's list further up.
Fundamentally, and here is where we differ, sometimes I think a boycott and a protest is a good idea. Genuinely let's remember what they did.
The NOTW allegedly paid someone to hack into the mobile phone of a murdered child, creating false hopes in her family, who later on gave them an exclusive interview on the off chance that that child would be found alive.
Yes other papers have hacked phones. But to the best of our knowledge none have hacked a murdered girl's mobile. If it comes out that they have the shitstorm would become a tornado. But so far at least it hasn't. Which makes News International a justified target of protest. And a very suspect company to take over BSkyB. OK News International is the parent company, it's not actually the NOTW. But the work culture stems from the same source.
If that doesn't warrant lost sales and a concentrated targeting on Rupe's advert revenue then nothing does. Will it be effective? Who knows. But I do reckon it will be right.
Your universes
are running parallel, Archie
Just to be clear.
I didn't say "this is too big to take a stand". I just don't think boycotts are the most effective or consistent or defensible way of taking action.
People have boycotted Nestlé for years. Has it done anything? Has it balls.
It might seem old fashioned or bourgeois or whatever, but I'm not that bothered: I take action the way I choose to, which is by writing letters (I've written literally dozens in the last few days), emails, joining in petitions and campaigns, funding campaign groups like 38 Degrees as generously as I can afford and lobbying my MP aggressively to take action.
These things I do on a regular basis. I've done all of these things on issue after issue over the years, from academies to the NHS to NewsCorp. I'm not comfortable with NewsCorp wholly acquiring Sky, but up until this point they've been a minority shareholder, and I think it's tokenistic and fruitless to boycott a company on the basis of who its minority shareholders may or may not be.
If NewsCorp acquire Sky outright, I will probably switch. But until that time, I'm not particularly uncomfortable with being their customer. As it stands, they don't represent a material threat to plurality of broadcast media. If they get to take Sky over, they will. That's the issue I'm bothered about when it comes to Murdoch.
What annoys me, I suppose, is people seemingly assuming that there's only one way of skinning a cat. It just seems a bit Student Union and lacking in nuance to suggest that someone who chooses not to boycott Sky because it's pointless, at this juncture, to do so, is making that decision out of apathy.
I fail to give Rupert Murdoch any of my money
Because I think he is utterly vile. He's not getting my money. I don't want what he is selling. I think he and the Square Mile have utterly corrupted public life in this country since the late 80s. Odious creeps like Richard Desmond can only aspire to the level of hatefulness NI have reached.
Mind you I gave up watching ITV coverage of major footie events because of the carpet bombing of the ad breaks by US corporations.
These are bad times. We're being lied to every day. Where you can - opt out of it. Seems reasonable to me.
what annoys me
What annoys me is people assuming that boycotting something is useless... :-)
Well, didn't work on South Africa did it?
Oh, hold on...
Well Bob
it probably wasn't us in the Student Union here wot done it but NOTW is closing down. I consider that to be a good thing indeed.
Do you?
I'm sure the Sunday Sun will be a totally different operation.
The Sunday Sun
is in Newcastle, Bob. You didn't know?
And yes, I consider it a good thing. I'm sure there are many (wouldn't guess who) who, given its age, would love to have a Grade II listing slapped on NOTW as it's part of "our heritage". Like the countryside and mop top pop combos. But I would disagree with them.
Think you might have missed the point there, flower.
Name calling is uncalled for
puerile and makes you look defensive. And I know exactly the point you were making.
So why...
...did you seek to make out that anyone wants the NOTW preserved? I don't care either way, except that the naivety of believing that a) this rebrand means anything or b) that it has *anything* to do with a NewsCorp boycott that hasn't even taken place yet is pretty sad.
So far on this thread, you've accused me of apathy and then made out that this pre-planned restructure was some kind of victory for your viewpoint. Both of those were untrue.
Getting a little worked up there, Bob
calling me sad, and all. If I accused you of apathy, I was certainly not alone. What's your beef with me, really?
Take it to PM.
This is only going to get ugly if it persists.
I think
Cameron's got his hands full without mediating your spats.
Ha.
I doubt that's the only thing of his that's full.
MAM - I have no personal beef with you. Neither was I referring specifically to you when I called the level of naivety on display "sad". But as I say, if you want to go off-topic and talk about personal issues, you know where the contact form is.
In any case, it's clear what my position is, and I suppose I'll have to learn to live with it not being quite the same as many others'. I just don't particularly like being misrepresented.
Meantime, I suspect it's a good idea if we don't respond to each other's posts in future. Gentlemen's agreement?
I feel so confused
Aren't you the same Bob who routinely counters my postings by pointing out 'irony' I had missed? And aren't you the same Bob who recently told me you just like arguing? Now you're saying we shouldn't ever communicate?
Actually, I don't feel confused. I feel manipulated.
Mmmmm, but...
I agree Bob that the Sunday Sun will be NOW2 in concept. However, I think it is significantly weakened. People buy the same paper year after year out of habit. My on laws buy the Sunday Mail because they like the crossword and the TV supplement. They think the paper is tosh. A Sunday Sun will have to fight for readers and there's no reason to suppose people will cut over directly from the NOW. They can hardly market it as "The New
NOW" can they. The other papers will know this and will be priming for that rearders base too. Equally, I reckon the Sun readership are not necessarily NOW readers. Let's see. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Sunday Sun has a rough time of it. Hopefully.
Brands are priceless assets
Companies guard them above all else. The fact that NI has given one up in this way is a measure of how successful the current wave of revulsion has been. Let's hope it keeps up.
The NOTW brand became worthless
as soon as the story broke. That's the problem with brands and why companies spend a fortune on corporate social responsibility and PR.
Which is why this such a catastrophe for them
You - one - can't dress this up any other way. This is one of the biggest brand disasters in the history of modern Western capitalism and it may have fatally weakened the parent company. Good. And this might loosen the throttle-hold the parent company has over public discourse and pliant politicians in this country - even better
How does The Guardian
know that messages were deleted? I am interested, do they have VERY inside info?
It has two verifiable
on the record sources within the Met that the messages were listened to and deleted, while the NoTW actually reported that it had listened in on the messages to police at the time. That was not made available to the public in 2002. Nick Davies, the lead reporter on the story, was interviewed on 5Live Drive this evening and imparted this information. (Now yesterday).
Paddy, that is REALLY interesting
Someone in the Met knew that as a fact and still after its investigation it reached the conclusion to "Move Along Nothing To See Here"? Mmmm....
Everyone is terrified of the gutter press.
Everyone. From the Prime Minister to the Met Commissioner to the lowliest civil servant. They're all terrified that if they fuck with the press, the press will fuck them up.
They're right to be terrified. That's exactly what happens.
For my money, media ethics is THE big domestic political issue of our time. It feeds into everything, and strikes at the heart of our whole democracy.
It's just so sad that it's taking something as grisly and upsetting as this to get people interested in it.
Bob, very much in agreement there
as I said up there ↑ the emotive nature of this incident brings home the nastiness of what - up until now - seemed to be just another "sleb trying to stop gossip" story. Speculation: wonder when the political hacking stories will start coming out?
Definitely.
Alistair Campbell - I know! Alistair Campbell! - was (partly) bang on the money last night when he blogged this. I say partly, because he makes the (politically motivated?) mistake of acting like this is a Murdoch issue, like the issue is just NewsCorp. It's not. It's so much bigger than that. I know it suits people to bash the much-bashed Murdoch drum, but he's only one player in a complicity which involves everyone. All of us. I think it's a mistake to narrow the focus.
But anyway, he was largely right, except in that. Here it is:
Also
Call me a paranoid conspiracy nut but Paddy's piece of info clearly suggests to me that some section of the Met is not just "running scared" of the media, but complicit in the cover-up or even in on the hacking itself somehow.
At this point...
...I think most "paranoid conspiracy nut" bets are off.
Police
While I defer to no-one in my disgust of how the Met has behaved over phone-hacking, I think in this case, it was Surrey Police who knew about the hacking all along and were leading the investigation, not the Met.
Stand corrected
JL. The point still stands though doesn't it?
Yes
Point stands absolutely. In fact, we now know that the Met AND the Surrey police knew about phone-hacking and left it alone.
Now, we all now that most senior leaders of the Met end up writing 'Let's string 'em up and it's political correctness gone mad' columns for various papers after they retire, so no surprise there.
But we now know TWO forces at the very least were (my words) complicit in this.
As stated by MP Tom Watson...
... on Newsnight last night. Eight minutes in if anyone is interested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012f4xy/Newsnight_04_07_2011/
It would just be nice...
...if this brought someone big - a minister, a senior Met officer - out of the woodwork to enumerate some of the many ways in which their work in the public interest is stymied by fear of the press. Tom Watson done good there, but he's just not high-profile enough to do anything serious.
As Archie says, for every Newsnight viewer, the NOTW can boast SEVEN readers. Tom Watson, admirable as his sentiments are, ain't going to get the job done. Big guns needed, if only they could find their spines long enough to say something useful.
So true.
If only Prescott and Campbell spoke out when their party was actually in power, they are a brave bunch when they can't do a damn thing.
Fair dos to Watson though, he has plugged away at this for a long long time. It indicates either bravery or a man with no skeletons in his closet and his plugging just might tempt out a big beast.
I'm not holding my breathe though. A Labour mp seems unlikely to influence a coalition minister to speak up. Unless Vince Cable takes that nuclear option eh?
I have posted on this before.
I dont think any party / coalition can get to, or retain high office without getting the sun onside.
I think it stinks, but I genuinely believe that.
BJB, I thought
the same. It makes a public more likely now, I would have thought.
How can everyone be investigating themselves? The Met's deep in the doo.
Very simple...
Milly went missing, family and friends kept calling her mobile. The phone's memory filled up, no messages could be left. Suddenly messages could be left again. The family assumed that Milly was listening and deleting. It was NOTW journos. That's how they know.
Sorry
still don't see how NOTW can be definitely implicated from these facts. Clearly, their involvement is implied, but there any number of other possible hypotheses that fit those facts. The Guardian must have more than that, otherwise in a court they would be shot down.
I am still wondering
how high up the hacking cover-up goes. There was so much media and political heat about super-injunctions and yet this story - which is potentially much more toxic - has really been handled by much the same news outlets with kid-gloves up to now. If this latest story really is true its highly emotive nature means that, perhaps, the truth will out.
Rupert Murdoch is a good guy
In the eyes of the establishment. Nothing will ever be done against him unless he buggers the Queen.
End of.
"unless he buggers the Queen"
Some people would pay good money to watch that.
(not me, you understand).
They'd have to.
Sky would have it on PPV. £14.95, staggered repeats the next day.
Personal protest
Because they government will do precisely nowt(this oneand I suspect the previous one would have done the same) the only thing one can do is make a personal protest and not buy any of Murdoch's soiled goods. And if that means I can't watch football. cricket, rugby league and speedway then tough. So be it. Yes I know it's a pinprink. Probably not even that. Even if every Word reader joined in it would still be a pinprick. A worthwhile gesture though.But at least my conscience is clear.
the thing is
you can watch sport without subscribing to Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch is a good guy
"If this latest story really is true its highly emotive nature means that, perhaps, the truth will out"
Excellent comment BJB, & I for one sincerely hope that that the truth does come out..
This is not some footballer striping someone behind his wifes back.
This matters, & I think it reinforces the comment Ian Hislop made on HIGNFY a little while back about privacy & super injunctions.
The police should investigate & prosecute where evidence is found.
They wont tho.
I will be burning my copy of News Of The World later
Pity. It's one of the best LP covers that Queen ever produced.
If any of this hacking mess ever comes to trial I sincerely hope that the press keep their gobs shut and not cause a mistrial, as happened with part of the Levi Bellfield trial. Leave the police to follow this through and try to get a conviction. Okay, not the Metropolitan police (silly).
Hacking?
Laying the disgraceful behavior of journalists and their editors to one side for a moment, guessing that someone hasn't changed the default PIN on their voicemail is hardly hacking, is it? I mean, it's not exactly up there with the achievements of Joe Engressia and the Phreakers (yep, TMFTL me, you know you want to).
Nobody seems to mention that the Mobile Operators left a simple exploit wide open for abuse - and hey, it's still open. This might be akin to blaming Glock for a Drive-By but there is some small responsibility there to be accounted for.
Oh, and change your voicemail PIN.
Still open?
I may be wrong, but I don't think it is. As far as I know, Voicemail these days isn't active by default - you have to switch it on, and select your own PIN when doing so. There's no one-size-fits-all, default PIN any more.
Correct
You are absolutely right, voicemail needs to be activated and on many networks (most in the UK) you will now be asked to choose your PIN at set-up.
Forgive me if I am wrong but what about the mailboxes that were already active when this issue blew up?
Where were the mail-out/SMS/EDM campaigns from the UK Operators advising their customers: 'Sorry, you might have read in the papers that we've given several thousand of you the same easy to remember PIN for your voicemail, you might want to change that.'
I write as someone who, once upon a time, activated many thousands of mailboxes.
Sorry
I took your "still open" point to mean that the vulnerability applied to all phones, rather than to just those phones to whom it originally applied. If you see what I mean.
No need for apology
I wasn't exactly clear in my original comment - too excited at the opportunity to mention Joe Engressia in an everyday context.
Before we get too excited about Mr Murdoch here..
They're all at it. All the papers. This is sourced from an ICO Hacking Report in The Guardian and comes via Hugo Rifkind, scribbler for The Times. To do with reporters using the services of phone hackers, the top figure is the number of transactions positively identified, the second the number of journalists / clients using the services. What a shock when we see what's at number one. And this is also why the papers aren't making too much of this. They're all at it. And let us not forget that it isn't the papers themselves doing the REALLY dirty work, it's the PIs. They produce the information and pass it on for money. The papers get their story and don't care how.
Daily Mail
952
58
Sunday People
802
50
Daily Mirror
681
45
Mail on Sunday
266
33
News of the World
182
19
Sunday Mirror
143
25
Best Magazine
134
20
Evening Standard
130
1
The Observer
103
4
Daily Sport
62
4
Sunday Times
52
7
The People
37
19
Daily Express
36
7
Weekend Magazine (Daily Mail)
30
4
Sunday Express
29
8
The Sun
24
4
Closer Magazine
22
5
Sunday Sport
15
1
Night and Day (Mail on Sunday)
9
2
Sunday Business News
8
1
Daily Record
7
2
Saturday (Express)
7
1
Real Magazine
4
1
Woman’s Own
4
2
Daily Mirror Magazine
3
2
Mail in Ireland
3
1
Daily Star
2
4
Marie Claire
2
1
Personal Magazine
1
1
Sunday World
1
1
Interesting
That The Observer is in that list, but The Guardian isn't.
I cant help wondering
Are the Guardian & Independent really purer than the driven snow with respect to this report?
IIRC, they use a tactic where they dont publish these stories as news, but they report them as "Stories from the gutter press", allowing themselves to claim the moral high ground while still dishing the dirt.
Apologies in advance if I am wrong for being so cynical.
Notice
that The Times is the one paper missing from the whole list. Is Hugo R. really saying his paper is *completely* innocent.
No Telegraph...
...either. Are they really so different?
here's the link to
ICO docu download page that report is from 2006 can't see why certain papers don't show up .
http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/Search.aspx?collection=ico&keywords=%22what...
Marie
Claire? That bastion of investigative journalism?
The Daily Sport?
I just assumed they made it all up. Wow.
It's not just a Murdoch thing...
The NOTW may well have been one of the worst offenders - and the Milly Dowler case is easily the most despicable example I've ever seen of this kind of thing - but to suggest it's a Murdoch problem is largely inaccurate. It's so much more widespread, to the extent that it'll probably never be properly dealt with because practically every paper in the land was doing it at some stage.
It's the staggering hypocrisy of some of these papers that infuriates me most - the Daily Mail are always quick to target some group or other for their 'threat value' to British society, but they're arguably a far more pernicious force than all of them.
Don't read The Mail either
But with Murdoch it's the pernicious combination of political leverage and industry monopoly which really rankles.
Regardless of all the Murdoch moaning
and finger pointing - THIS story is the sort of thing that makes me lose faith in the human race and bring my piss to boiling point. To quote Alan Gordon Partridge - "Scum, subhuman scum"
Newsnight
Interestingly the Dowler family lawyer has said that he as info that they here hacking the phone of the mother of one of Ian Huntley's victims. Just when you think the smell ca't get worse.
How must the family feel?
Not only have they lost their daughter and then have to suffer in ignominy of their private lives be opened up intrusively in a court of law where they were not even on trial, then to possibly reach some closure with the conviction of the monster who killed Milly, only to now find that the investigation was impaired by investigators employed by paper editors.
Yes, celebrities being hacked in order to feed the gossip rags is bad but this was, initially a missing person and unfortunately turned into a murder investigation. The full weight of the law should be brought down on whoever was responsible. Who knows how this would have turned out otherwise. This has nothing to do with who subscribes to Sky or what paper is read, it’s about the scandalous exploitation of an unfolding tragic event and the potential blocking of an on going police investigation.
Sorry for the rant, just had to get it off my chest
if I could
give you 10 up arrows, I would
it wasn't a rant, it was clear decent thinking, man/woman
No apologies needed
Well said.
I really wish
that me giving up on watching cricket, darts, boxing, football etc would have some effect but it won't and I'm not about to take away my greatest pleasures in a pointless campaign against a media monster who cares not a fuck either way. Is it however too much to ask that our government / law enforcement agencies takes this seriously enough to do something about it that involves the hack behind it doing time behind bars? Just imagine for a second that you are the person who instructed or carried out the hacking of a missing potentially dead schoolgirls phone, it is beyond "Drop the Dead Donkey" and a heinous thing to do, what were they hoping to find, are there decent journalists out there prepared to expose their own?
Behind bars
That would be the outcome I'd certainly wish for. It may not do any good whatsoever, but I will put pen to paper to my MP and ask that he does what he can to ensure that action is taken against those responsible. I can't see anything changing unless there is personal accountability for this sort of practice.
Having dealt with the Manchester Evening News and others
I came to the conclusion that if you find yourself at the sharp end of something tragic and news worthy a lot of news Journalists are fucking nosy prying bastards who couldn't give a flying fuck about the family or friends affected. It's their job. I'm not remotely surprised it's come to this. I hope those involved get their just deserts but I suspect they won't.
Bittorrent ahoy!
It must now be beyond doubt that it is not only 'not wrong' but actually a moral duty to download Treme, Nurse Jackie, etc. via bitorrent, rather than pay to subscribe to Sky Atlantic.
Is this a Deayton moment for the NOTW?
In that anybody who is called up by the News of the World and alleged to have done something and asked if they would like to comment just says "is that any worse than the "heinous" act of hacking into a missing girl's phone and deleting her messages, thus impeding a police investigation and giving false hope to a family?"
Journalism
Even though I tar the whole newspaper trade with the same brush I took matters in to my own hands about two years ago following lie after lie and celeb story after celeb story clogging up the pages and stopped buying them all.
With the internet it is now well within the capabilites of most to source the truth and those subjects we want to read ourselves. Newspapers' only plus point is the ease of acquisition. I just cannot bear to put money into the pockets of these corporations and their lazy hacks any longer.
Though,
and I'm not saying you do this, if one visits the websites of newspapers then one is still putting money into their pockets, albeit indirectly.
That's what I'm saying
albeit not very clearly. There are so many sites digging around out there that are independent and unaffiliated in any way that just like to have facts as the basis of its reporting and opinion rather than newspapers and their websites with their editorial sledgehammers.
Given
that most newspaper websites actually cost the owners money to maintain, one could argue that not buying the paper version but going to the website instead is hitting their pockets rather than putting money in.
Telephone Thing
How dare you assume I want to parlez-vous with you?
You Gretchen Franklin nosey matron type
Does the Home Secretary have the barest faintest inkling of what's going down?
Here's MES ahead of the game in 1990
I missed the follow up about car parking
I really need to go and do some work now.
But this sums it all rather wonderfully.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/murdoch-forces-normal-people-...
Thanks for that
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/rebekah-brooks-must-know-som...
and
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/rebekah-brooks'-desert-island-discs-201107074048/
made me laugh as well
On the BBC website now
"Claims that murdered teenager Milly Dowler's mobile telephone was hacked by a private investigator working for the News of the World (NoW) are "truly dreadful", the prime minister has said."
Is he trying to draw an official line under the story or distancing his government from NewsCorp. Still all "claims" and "allegedly" and also blame the private investigator not the newspaper. Wonder how much Mulcaire has been paid to keep quiet?
I wonder how long it'll be..
Until Mr Mulcaire's body is found, him having, apparently, taken his own life?
If he's wise, he'll have handed out lots of sealed "only to opened in the case of my death" envelopes. And will have told LOTS of people all about them. Very loudly.
Interesting question...
...which remains interesting despite a certain amount of Grauniad glass-house-stone-throwing is who's paying Mulcaire's legal fees? NewsCorp won't confirm or deny. If they're not, why would it hurt them to confirm that they're not? If they are, why?
Those are merely rhetorical questions, btw. Any attempts at answers on here would almost certainly be libellous.
The repercussions of this on the press will be enormous.
Fortunately hacking and journalistic ethics will be discussed at this event tonight
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/independent-voices-hacked-...
I personally would love to hear Johann Hari's thoughts on journalistic ethics today! Shame it's sold out...
I can see it now,
Johann Hari approaches the podium and begins:
Either that or...
... "I have a dream, that the press will adopt ethical behaviour when pursuing stories which, may they may interest the public, aren't actually in the public interest."
Pay
Is it time for me to say that if you admire the dogged determination/obsession (delete to match personal views) of Nick Davies' investigative journalism on this story, than can you buy the paper today or tomorrow? Because if news becomes completely free, you can bet your life stories like this on this timespan will become impossible to do.
Cameron
... is the man who persuaded Murdoch not to sack Rebekah Brooks/Wade.
His comment today that it is "quite shocking that SOMEONE could do this" shows that the News International defence line will be that Mulcaire acted alone.
So, who voted for Cameron then?
BTW, Tom Watson's comment that everyone is scared of Murdoch seems right, judging by the very low profile of this story in some of the media.
I beg to differ.
"BTW, Tom Watson's comment that everyone is scared of Murdoch seems right, judging by the very low profile of this story in some of the media"
No fear of Murdoch. A fear of accusations of hypocrisy. See my post above.. Every paper has been at it, The Mail being the worst offenders. They're looking over their shoulders at the moment.
Agree with your comment Lenny.
Dont want to appear antagonistic for the sake of it, but I must admit, I cant quite see the difference between scared of Murdoch & being scared of accusations of hypocrisy.
Arent they one & the when push comes to shove ?
It's not good news for Brooks
How long can she go on saying she had no idea?
It shows she had no control over what her staff were doing. And Besides, payments to murky Mulcaire types would have had to have been authorised by someone senior - more than likely her.
A head will roll, and despite being a Murdoch fave it's not put her in a good light all. She's either lying or she was a crap editor.
Another very dark day for journalism.
As retweeted by Charlie Brooker
RT @topoftheprops: funny how people like Sharon Shoesmith are 'incompetent' for not knowing what goes on on their watch, but not editors.
Surely her position is untenable?
As pointed out above, she's 'either lying or ... a crap editor'. But whether she knew or not, she is surely accountable for the culture of the newspaper which made anyone associated with it think that such methods were justifiable, or that senior heads would at least be turned the other way.
She memoed her staff today : "I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew - or worse - sanctioned these appalling allegations."
I wonder what response she got?
Significantly
She doesn't say she didn't know of or sanction the allegations merely that "you" - her loyal News Corp lackeys - could not conceive it as a possibility. It might be splitting hairs in general speech but for someone who uses words in a professional capacity the difference in meaning is quite clear.
I can conceive that she knew or sanctioned the phone hack, and it appears I'm not alone in this.
Could be she's an illiterate thug if course
Occam's razor...
Sorry
Double post
Interesting use of words …
"I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew - or worse - sanctioned these appalling allegations." - so you didn't sanction the allegations then? no we didn't think you did. So what is it thats "appalling" then exactly?
The only thing the greedy pay any attention to is money.
So stop giving them yours. I don't subscribe to Sky or buy newspapers, nasty damn things! The money I save I spend on the important things in life. My family, music and books and I'm a lot happier for it.
Music and books? Scab! (Er.. possibly)
Columbia Records wilfully and with malice aforethought distribute Fox Music, while Harper Collins books are part of Darth Rupert's very own News Corporation.
Bob Dylan? Bruce Springsteen? Terry Pratchett? Neal Stephenson? Neil Gaiman? Spurn them! Burn them! For all cower willingly in the shadow of the Great Wicked Wombat!
(Leading a Rupefree life is actually a lot easier said than done, I'm coming to realise.)
Point taken and well made Archie.
It's exactly his power crazed need to own EVERYTHING that disturbs me most. Having said that I find the ostrich position increasingly appealing as I slip inexorably towards dotage. Of the above only his Bobness floats my boat so guilty as charged on that point, although my Dylan albums are of the purchased donkey's years ago variety but no doubt I have transgressed in other ways. I just choose not to transgress in those particular areas. Each to their own conscience I guess.
Dead right
I hope I am not putting words into your mouth but - even if you have to compromise at least give it some moments of bastard thought when deciding who gets your money, why not? I've been able to cut Kraft, Tesco, Nestle, News International and a few other arseholes out of my life without it affecting my ability to live and breathe in a normal and productive capacity and it DOES give me some genuine pleasure to be able to say it.
I'm not consistent and I'm not doing it for anybody else's sake but it does matter to me.
I now find I have to leave the RAC because they've been bought by the utterly detestable Carlyle Group. Shit.
Ford and N-power have announced they
won't be advertising in the NOTW this weekend and in Ford's case they may not be using other Newscorp papers as well.
Excellent news
And harder for the world-weary cynics to shrug off as liberal hand-wringing.
Taxi for Brooks!
This issue is only real for News Int. if it's about money - that's Rupert Murdoch's gift to the nation. And now it is. Brooks will go before the next issue of the News of the World.
Other Newscorp papers...
...this is interesting and will mean that Times/Sun Times editors will have to come out to condemn as best they can, I would think.
In fairness, the Times put this on the front page. OK, it wasn't the lead story but it WAS on the front page today.
Good old Ford
Their ethics might soon stretch to not air brushing out black people.
Twitter
Reading Mr D Baker's tweets today has been the one good thing to come out of todays news, as usual he has hit the nail on the head.
But I must say the the silence on twitter from DH has been deafening, which is a shame as he jumps straight in when he feels the BBC has been less than brilliant.
Ingore.....
Sorry, ignore this....
what happens now is the
what happens now is the media and politicians (who are not a part of this whole nauseating circus ofcourse) make a big fuss and promise to have an inquiry and bring people to book and possibly face criminal charges, then after a year or so when all the fuss has died down, a few token hacks will get their wrists slapped and the politicians will continue to suck up to vested interests and the newspapers will continue to regulate themselves and the world will keep spinning - here's something from an unbiased observer (ahem)
http://swinemagazine.wordpress.com/
You might be right
But its all a bit Arab Spring out there. Fingers crossed. anyway cxan I say I laughed out loud at your non-de-plume?
Slightly off topic, but...
Isn't company law as a whole (for PLCs and limited companies anyway) a process that removes direct accountability from individuals except in the most heinous cases? If you're freelance - or in a partnership? – and go bust then you're personally responsible for the mess (declarations of bankruptcy notwithstanding which have personal repercussions) ... but if in charge of a PLC or Ltd Co, the most appalling screw-ups can be perpetrated, just on the edge of illegality, and the board/execs are not held personally liable ...
i guess this means that it encourages big wodges of capital to be put together for money-making exercises without the personal risk attached (mining, drilling for oil, making steel, making chemicals, whatever) ... or at least the personal risk is relocated to the shareholders and it's a financial one rather than - usually - a moral one ...
i suppose local and national government is more accountable (via elections) than PLCs are to their shareholders (a notoriously inert and widely distributed bunch) ...
OR this whole thread has set me thinking about accountability and why there doesn't seem to be much about ... part of the social compact we have is to let direct accountability slide; allow 'the processes' to take place and all will be well ... except often it's not
hmm ... just thinking aloud - no conclusions
One of the reasons things have got so bad
Is that corporations are usually run now by conscienceless hirelings whose sole interest is plunder. They wreck companies in their own interests and pay themselves a plutocratic imaginary going rate - at the expense of the owners (shareholders) whose interests are typically represented by investment management scum on the same gravy train.
The really odd thing is that if there are any exceptions where the senior management aren't interchangeable faceless creatures out of JG Ballard, they probably include Rupert Murdoch's personal vile creation, NI
Spot on, FG
I just wish I could have given your post 100 ups.
I always get a little exasperated
by the sense that it's all right to group a whole collection of different people - here it would be senior managers and executives in corporations - and class them as a single minded entity. Here we are saying that they are all "conscienceless hirelings whose sole interest is plunder". All of them, presumably without exception.
As someone who works in a corporation, I would maintain that the ratio of good, fair, decent and rationale people is pretty similar in all levels of employees. Making the above perspective either unfair or wrong (or both).
If this kind of logic was applied on racial, colour or religious aspects, it would, rightly, get very short shrift. As it is just people who earn good salaries, it gets an up instead.
I too always get a little exasperated
"by the sense that it's all right to group a whole collection of different people (say from one country)and class them as a single minded entity". But that's just me.
As someone who works in a corporation (and one time for a division of News Int) I would maintain that a large proportion of senior management now comes from the ranks of MBA/Accountancy often with little or no background in the core business of that corporation and tend more toward the venal and craven.
Climbing corporate poles requires skills. These people are not derided simply because they earn large salaries, probably rather for their skills sets.
Absolutely
I have over 30 years' experience working in both the private and public sectors. I have known good people in managerial roles (let's call them the Angels), and bad people, the types referred to by MAM (the Snakes*).
Consistently, I have seen Snakes rise ever higher by shafting Angels, who generally don't have the stomach to play the Snakes' sordid underhand games.
* No offence intended to ophidians.
Leedsboy we've disagreed on this before
And I mean no offence to you - so I will just say that this is genuinely my own experience. And I do feel you only have to look around you at thousands of companies asset stripped and run into the ground by their CFO and a CEO imposed by the banks
I work for a blue chip multinational nominally UK based company which makes SHEDLOADS of money for its senior management - not us though - and with a past reputation as a benevolent employer. I have worked for US software companies, and I started out in hard-scrabble publishing and advertising a quarter of a century ago. I have a good well paid and interesting job and the respect of my peers. I'm not thwarted or bitter. I am VERY angry.
I have never seen such a crowd of greedy, venal, incompetent, staff-shagging status-obsessed snout-in-the-trough crooks as the current generation of professional managers - they'll be off to another blue chip somewhere else in a couple of years or possibly prison (some hope) but meantime the damage they do is incalculable.
We employ lots of European and US people in senior management roles - I am willing to bet that US and European companies do not feel obliged to hire 'the best' UK management in the same way at rates commensurate with their self-awarded 'the best' status.
Stripping the lead off a company's roof to make easy profits and taking a big slice for yourself, only works until it starts raining.
Right now its pissing down.
UK Engineers - yes. UK Designers - yes. UK workforces - yes as Honda, Nissan and many others show. UK senior managers - absolutely not
I suppose the difference is
that I am including senior management in all of its forms, which to me would be operational, creative, commercial, legal and things like engineers. I would agree that those senior managers that operate on an MBA upload of management tools and then have very little genuine understanding of the business and market that they operate in are very often the inept ones I have encountered. But many of those senior managers I have encountered are not MBA driven but have worked their way up the organisations I have worked for and bought from.
OK I am sorry for rattling your cage
Because I think we probably agree really - or near enough at least
Cheers
It's ok
I'd rather discuss it sensibly - which I think we did. And the next time I get stuck in a meeting with an automaton with an MBA I'll think of you as I try and give them a hard time.
And I will think of you
And maybe try and be a bit more forgiving... it could happen....
MBA
Not for nothing does MBA stand for Managing By Accident.
Have I, at some point derided Americans?
I'm not sure if there is a misunderstanding between us on this? I do not recall ever expressing such a view either in real life or this blog. I recall (and I hope I have most of my faculties operating ok) doing exactly the opposite actually.
I just get a sense from this post and some others that you (and some others on this blog) have me down as some anti-american or anti another country orientated person and I really can't recall doing anything that supports that.
Unless I am interpreting your post incorrectly (although it may help if you explain what you were getting at if I have, because I don't get it otherwise), I am a loss as to the recurrence of this theme to my posts.
You'd have to cast your mind way back to July 4th
of this year, I'm not getting into 1776 and all that.
I cracked wise about televised football and all the endless hours of quality programming beamed into people's homes almost without their asking by a company I disapprove of on many levels. This, it appeared to me, was misinterpreted by you as a remark 'against' the English in their time of deep emotional turmoil. Rather, it was a remark against apathy in the face of... shit, we've been through all that. But it seemed to me you were seeing a racial/cultural 'us against them' that wasn't there.
Maybe an honest mistake on my part. In what seemed to be a vigorous defence of England the opposite may have been interpreted by me.
I took your comment on the 4th July (how apt)
as a herding of "you lot" meaning the followers of the English Premier League. I did add into my interpretation of your comment my perception that you have often single out the English as a group that gets crtiticised in a broad, sweeping kind of way. I think I misread your original comment on that basis and although I did try to explain, I don't think I quite got it right.
We should both be more midful of each other I suspect as we both don't seem to mean what the other interprets and we are both fairly determined people I'd guess.
I'm off to eat thai food with my son. Hope you have a good evening as well.
Thai food is nice
better yet with offspring. I cooked a nice supper for my wife while the mini-mates slept upstairs.
I look forward to discussing things with you again soon.
Thanks
and me the same.
What??
You're eating Thai food "with offspring"? Cannibalism is still illegal you know, should be ashamed of yourself.
"Daddy, I don't like my brother.."
"Well just eat the pad thai, then."
Christ
I'm glad I'm just horribly hungover today, and not Rebekah Brooks. Imagine being hungover, *and* being Rebekah Brooks.
Say what you like
Say what you like about Rebekah Brooks, but you've gotta love that quite unbelievable mane of hair.
If it hasn't already got one, then it certainly deserves its own Facebook tribute page, I feel.
I'd describe it as Fiz out of Coronation Street meets Weird Al Yankovic with a touch of latter day Robert Plant.
Throughout this entire NOTW debacle I've been glued to the TV news channels just hoping to catch a glimpse of her coiffure, which seems to get wilder and more magnificent by the day.
Here she is seeing her grandad home safe after a night out.
Frank Skinner
described her as something like 'John Sergeant peering out from beneath an elaborate hanging basket.'
Thats brilliant
wonder who wrote it
Yes, it's a brilliant line
Meanwhile the hair just gets more rock & roll by the day.
It's going to be high maintenance in Holloway, though.
Has anyone
done this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wFufrqhp0eE
Hunter Thompson
Nice quote from Hunter Thompson quoted on Twitter by Danny Baker : ' A cruel, shallow money trench runs through the heart of journalism, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free.'
Hunter
That's a selective quote, he was actually talking about television.
"The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason."
The general point still holds though!
i cannot believe
That Brooks is digging her heels in. I keep checking news feeds hoping to see the announcement, but so far no joy.
Two things I've resolved to do : 1. Join Ganglesprocket's boycott. 2. Discontinue my support for Ed Milliband if he doesn't go hell for leather and straight for the jugular in PMQs this morning.
This just in...
...from Ed Miliband's pre-PMQ's briefing session this morning. His opening salvo will be this:
"Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Conservative Party will now sever all links with News International? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Conservative Party will now sever all links with News International? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Conservative Party will now sever all links with News International? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Conservative Party will now sever all links with News International?
Finally, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Conservative Party will now sever all links with News International?"
Ed Milliband at PMQs
It would be nice wouldnt it.
Um.
He will be at PMQs.
It can't be too long now,,,
Not a chance
She's "family".
May well be shuffled off to another part of Rupert's empire though.
What happens now?
With new revelations appearing daily, we can only hope that this finally puts the NOTW out of business.
Personally, I've never forgiven this sorry excuse for a newspaper for colluding with corrupt police officers to get The Stones busted and jailed in 1967
I can never forgive
The Times for helping to get the Stones out again. Think of all the shit records we would have been spared.
They should only have been bailed until 1972.
Then they should have been banged up and the key thrown away.
Except for Charlie, of course. A slap on the wrist and life on probation for him.
I think the most interesting questions are the unasked ones ..
..like why did the original Police investigation into these allegations fall dry, with a no evidence verdict? When there seems to be so much evidence.
It may very well be, as with the 1967 case mentioned in the last post, that things haven't changed all that much in the dubious and politically selective relationship between the Police and certain papers. Who knows.
Indeed
It's getting 'Our Friends in the North'-esque.
That, Marky, is the biggest and baddest question.
Who was leaning on the Met? Cameron, at the behest of the Rebekah Brooks / Andy Coulson combination? Did the upper echelons of News International do it directly? Was it nothing to do with NI? Let us not forget that it is The Mail which has the greatest number of hits on the Hackometer. Might Mr Dacre have been trying to head things off at the pass? His organ should be mightily in the frame yet seems to have been able to dodge the shit thus thrown.
Which is odd. The BBC has a gilt-edged chance here to drag Dacre through the plague-pit using a very long rope. Why aren't they taking it?
Or Mirror
in at least one version---see the interesting figure here
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml
but isn't Beeb v Murdoch rather a long standing thing, cf Adam Curtis blog above ?
Hmm wouldn't go quite that far
With specific motives and such. All that sounds unlikely in my book.
All I would say is - on the very interesting subject of illegal phone hacking: The police are subject to the same legal restrictions as the rest of us. Normally if they need to to obtain authorisation to monitor someone's phone calls, they have to go through stringent and recorded channels in order to do it. If you think about this, and about technology as it stands, and about heavily funded private organisation with access to that technology, it becomes pretty obvious what the temptations must be.
Without going into details, that's what I meant by "dubious and politically selective relationship." Its not unreasonable to suspect that any such relationship might be a two way street either.
Ahaaaa
..looks like some aspects of this are already coming to light! Anyone interested in this subject should look at this very excellent edition of Newsnight, with a lot of new revelations that you wont see in many of your papers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012f4zy/Newsnight_06_07_2011/
What will happen as a result of this to the Police? Unfortunately history teaches us that most probably Sweet FA will happen.
I'm getting rather tired.....
.....of the 'it wouldn't have happened in our day' comments by many ex-journos.
This c*** has been ongoing for at least thirty years now ('Gotcha', 'Hillsborough', 'Princess Diana') and the only change in the familiar story of dishonesty, greed and rampant egotism on display is that it concerns mobile phones.
Rest assured if mobile phones had been commonplace in 1980, the News of the World (and others) would have 'tapped up' Yoko Ono after Lennon's murder, the young Princess Diana on her engagement, and Michael Foot the Labour leader to discredit him etc. etc.
As an aside, and fully recognising the young man's many faults and significant contribution to his own downfall, the News of the World and the Metropolitan Police did much to trigger the events that led to the death of Brian Jones.
Catch the summing up of the judge at Lewes Crown Court, I think it was, in September '68.......
I'm part of a small but very elite clique
who haven't had our phones hacked.
Surprised this hasn't been posted before
British Legion
Strange decision from the charity to pull out only when it comes to light that their 'boys'' families may have been targeted.
Hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl? We'll let that slide.
What crediblity those companies using NOTW for their own ends this Sunday?
More power to 'em
I say.
Not like the reverse has ever happened.
I rather enjoyed this
Hugh Grant repeating his allegations on the subject:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690
So here's what's happened then
It's closed.
Blimey, drastic.
I'm sure all jobs are safe. Expect a Sunday Sun anytime soon.
Didn't see that coming.......
Guess Rupert decided a bit of radical surgery was required to protect his BSkyB interests, rather like like amputating an infected limb to save the body.
When was the last time a national institution like the Screws implode like this?
Cynical I know but.
Closing the NOTW and starting The Sun as a 7 day a week paper would reduce staffing, building and other costs and probably prolong the profitable life of the paper by another few years.
I wonder how many of the people losing their jobs had nothing to do with the scandal (or were not even there at the time).
I would far rather see the people responsible be brought to account and have a serious custodial sentence than the paper close.
Ratners
is the one that springs to mind.
NOTW to close!
It was The Word wot dun it!
the biggest whore of babylon
will be the "celeb" who will front the imminent "let's have the sun on sunday" campaign...
people do need to realise the manipulative and exploitative nature of all tabloid journalism.
opinions may be like arseholes ... but perhaps we can stop our nation's opinions being formed by uber arseholes...(i know, some hope)..
onwards to westminster!!!
Free press
Heard some pundit saying this has got to be investigated and punished because we don't want to find ourselves ten years down the line hearing wailing and gnashing of teeth over exactly the same sort of scandal. Thought don't worry, you won't hear anything of the kind because by then the entire news media will be in the hands of the Murdoch Corp and so there will be no danger that it will get out.
Call me paranoid (please).
You're paranoid
Newspapers are a dying breed, although I don't see them disappearing completely for 10-15 years. Murdoch wouldn't be allowed to own all of them under current competition rules anyway.
TV - well, even if the BSkyB is allowed to go ahead, it was always the rumour that the price would be that Sky News would have to be sold off or be separated as an independent non-Murdoch company. More importantly, Murdoch's big ambition is to get into the European market. The French and German regulators will be watching what is going on here with interest and I doubt would allow a company with such a reputation to be a licenced broadcaster
The internet - one thing this (and the superinjunction stuff) has shown is that the internet is still a fairly anarchic place that isn't on the whole controlled by big corporations - in fact big corporations don't seem to quite "get it".
So, no, I don't expect that Murdoch Corp will be in control of the entire News Media, in fact far from it.
10-15 years
Yep, that sounds about right. Year-on-year losses in newspaper circulation are currently running at 7-11% - with the News of the World one of the titles at the upper end of that range, interestingly.
If you need any evidence as to why tabloid journos
are hled in such contempt then this creature who keeps slithering in front of TV cameras like a prize idiot is your No.1 exhibit
and if you missed Newsnight
Interesting character
..that Paul McMullen. Always takes the position of defense, but quite clearly giving the whole game away in interviews. Some kind of conscience lurking beneath the contradictory statements he makes. All very strange.
was just looking at this bit funnily enough
in the long Newsnight edition-Emily Maitlis asks him more or less same question at 5.45 in the YouTube clip and describes him as "a bit of a tortured soul":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012f51p/Newsnight_08_07_2011/
Tortured schmortured.
He's just a horrendous little creep who can't keep his "free press" shtick clasped to himself long enough to disguise his visceral envy and fear of people who are richer and more powerful than him.
Absolute scum of the earth, and I don't use that phrase often or lightly.
Spot on
We already have a regulated broadsheet press and broadcasting laws, neither of which prevent anyone from exposing wrongdoing. Murdoch is still a major media player and Toby Young couldn't care less about "press freedom" He's looking to the day when he might need a job.
No-one buys Paul McMullan's pathetic "press freedom" defence either. As he made obvious in that interview, I'm sure his self-loathing envy must have helped him to do his execrable job.
I hope McMullen does feel "tortured" - it would be some payback for what he and the rag he worked for did to plenty of undeserving people.
Bob - dead on
Mac45 - ditto
Whereas Emily Maitlis
only describes me as a tortured soul in my dreams ;-)
Does he realise
that he's a ridiculous figure? It's as though he's reinvented himself as an Evelyn Waugh caricature of the embittered old soak hack, surely he must have some degree of self awareness?
Don't forget this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scarboro#Media_intrusion_and_suicide
No one does clawing sentimentality.....
.....better than a tabloid journalist (apart from defeated England footballers, obviously) but all this guff about an institution with a peerless history etc. etc. is somewhat negated by four pivotal words:
news.
of.
the.
world.
Are you George Bernard?
The decline of this country can be virtually dated from Murdoch's acquisition of 'The Sun'......first issue apparently on 17th November '69.
I just hope that Dennis Potter is enjoying the three-ring-circus somewhere.........
still got it
Dennis Skinner on form " Send Murdoch back from whence he came and get Chris Huhne to drive him to the airport"
Rebekah Wade
"Throughout this entire NOTW debacle I've been glued to the TV news channels just hoping to catch a glimpse of her coiffure, which seems to get wilder and more magnificent by the day."
I have been doing the same, only I keep hoping to see her arse.
When all is said and done
It's probably not as magnificent or impressive as her hair.
Collars & cuffs: do they match, I wonder?
In these modern times we live...
She'd probably have to be bald for that.
he's
usually on her left
Collars & cuffs
Surely they match - nobody would choose to be ginger would they?
( & I speak as a proud father of a redhead daughter)
Murdoch is the very definition of a school bully.....
.....and when school bullies get brought to book they run away.
It's a hunch, for sure, but I can't see either him or his plain son turning up to that hearing next week.
Makes the non-sacking of Rebekah Wotsit even more logical (and many commentators were particularly slow on the uptake on this one) as she will 'have' to turn up to the hearing being a British national.
So for Murdoch and his plain son it's a bit like having a 'Get Out Of Jail Free Card' in Monopoly.
Not for Rebekah Wotsit, of course, for her it's like having a 'Go Directly To Jail' card.
Erm..........
......Steptoe & Son 'aren't available next Tuesday'.
Told ya.
Now is the non-sacking of the former editor making sense.....?
I haven't
gone through the various threads on this issue to check and see if anyone else has posted it, but i thought this Fry and Laurie sketch on the Dirty Digger (found on Roger Ebert's page) was quite amusing:
Brooks...
nicked!
Still paranoid
Doesn't it seem strange to other people that the Met (under suspicion themselves for taking backhanders from R Brooks's own organ) are now 'interviewing' her as a suspect? Are they actually questioning her or just getting their story straight? If these were any other category of suspect, wouldn't they be being kept apart to avoid opportunities for collusion?
As Fox News point out that
the NOTW are the real victims here along with Poor old Rupert
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/the-most-incredible-...
If this entire thing has one positive outcome ...
it will be that Fox News, and the fear it seems to generate in the US, is curtailed and undermined in some way. Although thats probably optimistic as things stand at the moment. An old style propaganda outfit, at the same time one of the most watched and trusted "news" sources over there, Everything is misrepresented, from their current Presidents motives, to the value of human life in the MIddle East and North Africa.
Just found this interesting thing on Youtube. Amid the odd bit of whining here and there, Many ex Fox journalists tell of their experiences working for Murdochs esteemed institution ...
Sarah Payne now....
....you would never have guessed?
WRONG!
How on earth, didn't you?
Think of someone who could have been 'tapped' by the media in the last thirty years:
Prime Ministers, The Queen, Mother Teresa, The Pope, Princess Diana during/after the crash.
Double it and, rest assured, we're be near to knowing exactly what the press has been like in the last three decades and, by association, what this country has been like in the last thirty years.