In media scandal, British debating how far is too far
LONDON — Britain’s phone hacking scandal intensified Wednesday as the scope of tabloid intrusion into private voice mails became clearer: Murder victims. Terror victims. Film stars. Sports figures. Politicians. The royal family’s entourage.
Almost no one, it seems, was safe from a tabloid determined to beat its rivals, whatever it takes.
The focal point is the News of the World — now facing a spreading advertising boycott — and the top executives of its parent companies: Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, and her boss, media potentate Rupert Murdoch.
In his first comment since the latest details emerged, Murdoch said in a statement Wednesday that Brooks would continue to lead his British newspaper operation despite calls for her resignation.
The scandal, which has already touched the office of Prime Minister David Cameron, widened as the Metropolitan Police confirmed they were investigating evidence from News International that the tabloid made illegal payments to police officers in its quest for information.
The list of potential victims also grew. Revelations emerged Wednesday that the phones of relatives of people killed in the July 7, 2005, terrorist attacks on London’s transit system, as well as those tied to two more slain schoolgirls, may also have been targeted.
As a journalist, I’ve always been intrigued by the cultural and legal differences between my craft as practiced here in the States and the way it’s practiced in Britain. Libel cases, for example, are much easier for media subjects to win in Great Britain, which lacks the “public figure” protection granted media here in the United States. And British courts have much more power to dictate what the media can and cannot report than they do here at home.
Conversely, the British press is typically much more rowdy and colorful than its American counterpart. The boys and girls of Fleet Street do things as a matter of course — half-naked women on Page Six, for example — that most American outlets would never even contemplate. They are also much more willing to invade personal privacy.
At first glance, a media decision to hack into the phone account of Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old missing girl, back in 2002 and even delete some taped calls, would seem to have been one step over the line even by British standards. But to an American journalist, it’s remarkable that such an invasive tactic had apparently been more or less accepted in Britain for so long, and is drawing censure and investigation now only because it involved a murder case involving an innocent young woman. (Back in 1993, you may recall, a British magazine published a transcript of a salacious phone call — something involving Tampons — between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles that it had somehow acquired.)
Public outrage over newspaper actions in the Dowling case has grown so strong that it is threatening government approval of a deal by Murdoch to purchase the British Sky Broadcasting Group.
As the WSJ, another Murdoch outfit, reports:
“At the same time, another arm of the U.K. regulatory bureaucracy sounded a cautionary tone on Wednesday. Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, issued a statement that serves as a reminder that it effectively has the power to block the deal even though it has already reported to Mr. Hunt that it’s satisfied the transaction wouldn’t harm media plurality in the country.
Ofcom has the authority to take away the broadcasting license of an entity it deems unfit to hold it. Should Ofcom decide that as a result of the phone-hacking allegations News Corp. is unfit to hold a broadcasting license, that could make its takeover of BSkyB, a pay-TV operator, a practical impossibility.
“In the light of the current public debate about phone hacking and other allegations, Ofcom confirms that it has a duty to be satisfied on an ongoing basis that the holder of a broadcasting licence is ‘fit and proper,’” Ofcom said. “We are closely monitoring the situation and in particular the investigations by the relevant authorities into the alleged unlawful activities,” it added.
Personally, I think we’ve found the better balance here. We have more legal leeway to cover affairs of state aggressively, but as a rule are more respectful of the law and personal privacy. On the other hand, in an Internet age, the ability of the industry as a whole to discipline itself in such matters is fast eroding, and there’s not a whole lot that the traditional media can do about that.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
213 comments Add your comment
Midori
July 6th, 2011
5:32 pm
Murdock is a jackal
Midori
July 6th, 2011
5:32 pm
first!!
Brad Steel
July 6th, 2011
5:41 pm
As a tangent topic on media, kudos to the AJC for exposing the APS cheating scandal. Fine example of local news-worthy investigative reporting.
Exposing the APS’s corrosive, toxic culture is a good place to start fixing a screwed-up institution.
Ddi anyone hear more about that teacher under the table at the cheatin’-meeting?
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
5:42 pm
“At first glance, a media decision ”
This what I don’t get, Jay.
Was this a “media” decision, or a personal decision by someone in the media? I haven’t been able to nail that part down.
Jay
July 6th, 2011
5:47 pm
Dave R., it was apparently a media decision made by the paper’s top editors in multiple cases. It wasn’t one lowly reporter making a bad decision on his own.
AmVet - A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
July 6th, 2011
5:47 pm
Very titillating.
Speaking of which, it is The Sun’s Page 3 girls, Jay.
As for their media, the House of Commons, etc., for such a supposedly staid people, the Brits can be incredibly obnoxious…
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
5:47 pm
Don’t get me wrong. I think both are egregious. But I’m just wondering if they are aiming at the proper target in this case.
Jm
July 6th, 2011
5:48 pm
Sounds like a license needs to be revoked. And more appropriately, some prosecutions need to occur if a law was broken. But I’m no expert on British common law.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 6th, 2011
5:48 pm
Computer capabilities, the internet and lax privacy rules means that more and more information that most previously thought would be buried in the volume can now be found and collected. However hacking into personal accounts does have a certain distaste as well as resulting in impacting evidence in a criminal matter. I dont personally know the rules in UK in depth but it would seem from the uproar in the UK that Rupert has step into a mess and its a shame Rupert continues to tolerate this. Illegal payments to law enforcement however should never be tolerated.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
July 6th, 2011
5:49 pm
Well, this nosy stuff is one reason I always look into the toilet before I use it. You never can tell what prevert will want to get a picture of the missus’s bottom and Private Parts. It’s just awful somebody would go to the trouble of getting into somebody’s private phone messages and even looking up Dave R’s real last name and publishing stuff he’s published. It just ain’t fair to use a guy’s own words against him. Ain’t nothing Sacred anymore.
Anyhow, if this wasn’t a Fox-owned outfit I’d be for pulling that rag’s liscence. But we got to have the Truth and we can’t have that if only the librul rags are left.
P.S. Did they find anything kind of salty in those messages they listened to and then deleted? We got a Right to Know, you know.
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
5:49 pm
“Speaking of which, it is The Sun’s Page 3 girls, Jay.”
Or so you’ve been told . . .
Joe Mama
July 6th, 2011
5:49 pm
Jay — “it is threatening government approval of a deal by Murdoch to purchase the British Sky Broadcasting Group.”
Jay, does Murdoch own any British media properties already?
Jay
July 6th, 2011
5:51 pm
It gets complicated, jm, because one of the editors allegedly involved went on to serve as the current prime minister’s top communications guy, and the current gov’t has strong ties to Murdoch. An earlier police investigation into the practice went nowhere, allegedly because the gov’t didn’t want to find out what was going on.
That’s in part why the reaction to this latest case has been so strong, the sense that justice has not been done.
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
5:53 pm
Given the British government’s ability to approve licenses for media outlets, I’d certainly be a bit more cautious in what I’d allow my editors to do.
Speaking as a person who’s privacy has been violated, I’d arrest and prosecute.
Jay
July 6th, 2011
5:53 pm
Joe Mama, Murdoch owns a very huge chunk of British media — newspapers, TV, satellite TV….
@@
July 6th, 2011
5:54 pm
On the other hand, in an Internet age, the ability of the industry as a whole to discipline itself in such matters is fast eroding, and there’s not a whole lot that the traditional media can do about that.
They can, at the very least, deal with it on their personal blog!!!!
Computer capabilities, the internet and lax privacy rules means that more and more information that most previously thought would be buried in the volume can now be found and collected.
Who would know better than Keep, eh buddy?
I’m outta here.
Jay
July 6th, 2011
5:54 pm
Times of London, The Sun, News of the World ….
Doggone/GA
July 6th, 2011
5:56 pm
“Speaking as a person who’s privacy has been violated”
Maybe someone should start taking bets on how often we hear this whine from now on.
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
5:57 pm
“It gets complicated, jm, because one of the editors allegedly involved went on to serve as the current prime minister’s top communications guy, and the current gov’t has strong ties to Murdoch.”
Kinda like Hope & Putt ™ bringing those journalists into the fold like Jay Carney and the one who was brought over to sell Obamacare to the masses. I forget her name.
@@
July 6th, 2011
5:58 pm
From downstairs:
@@, you still here? I thought this was boring or something.
Just trying to help you out, jay. No need to thank me.
Jay
July 6th, 2011
6:00 pm
Right, Dave R.
But remind me again: How was Carney implicated in illegal or unethical actions as a journalist that may have been covered up by the government to protect him?
You know, to make it parallel to the British case?
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
6:00 pm
“Maybe someone should start taking bets on how often we hear this whine from now on.”
Feel free to let us all know how you feel following YOUR first death threat received, Doggone.
Your flippancy might just drop down a notch or two.
@@
July 6th, 2011
6:01 pm
One last comment.
Who is David Kernell?
A self-proclaimed Obamacrat and a notorious e-mail hacker.
schnirt
josef
July 6th, 2011
6:01 pm
I’ve never been able to get a handle on the Brits and the press…like Jay says, on the one hand they have a lot more, well, censorship, than us, but then they do a much better job of taking on those public figures with a good left-handed jibe…
BRAD
Go read the report…
Jay
July 6th, 2011
6:02 pm
how can we miss you, @@, if you never go away?
Oh, and let’s move on from the recent unpleasantness, shall we?
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
6:03 pm
Jay, I’m just pointing out how, well – embarrassing – it might be for journalists to attempt to retain any semblance of objectivity after having agreed to work in the public sector.
It’s not as if they get some lifetime appointment, you know.
A person who's privacy has been violated
July 6th, 2011
6:04 pm
Well I never!!!!!!!!!
getalife
July 6th, 2011
6:05 pm
Not familiar with England’s politics but they should get murdoch were it hurts.
Sue him for billions.
SKH
July 6th, 2011
6:06 pm
While I often disagree with your PoV, Jay, let me say this was a great post – very thoughtful I felt.
AmVet - A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
July 6th, 2011
6:07 pm
Hell, we have giant corporations “legally” authorized to spy on us in this country these days.
And habeus corpus is an inconvenient obstacle in the war on terror.
So what’s a little wiretapping by the English paparazzi?
@@
July 6th, 2011
6:07 pm
jay:
Can you show me where I asked to be missed?
Do you want me to go away?
Shutting down in 3….2….1
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Joe Mama
July 6th, 2011
6:08 pm
Dave — “Jay, I’m just pointing out how, well – embarrassing – it might be for journalists to attempt to retain any semblance of objectivity after having agreed to work in the public sector.”
Many White House press secretaries have gone back to work in commercial media after working in government; I suspect there are also large numbers of press critters who worked for Senators or Congressmen — or even at the state government level — as well. Are you suggesting that they *can’t* be objective or perhaps that they can’t be trusted? Or simply that there’s a presumption of bias on their parts that they will have to overcome?
And there’s no need to be snippy or accuse me of poor reading comprehension, Dave — I’m just trying to get some clarification on what you’re expressing here.
Left wing management
July 6th, 2011
6:09 pm
Surprised you didn’t mention the Fairness Doctrine, Jay, and the rise of Fox News in recent years.
Things are not well in the American media landscape.
getalife
July 6th, 2011
6:10 pm
Hugh Grant wore a wire to get a reporter to admit he hacked him.
Sounds like a movie.
Tabloids out of control.
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
6:11 pm
LWM, do you actually watch Fox NEWS, or just their opinion programs?
And how do Fox opinion programs differ in any way from MSNBC opinion programs except that one comes from the right while the other comes from the left?
Joe Mama
July 6th, 2011
6:12 pm
LWM — “Surprised you didn’t mention the Fairness Doctrine”
The Fairness Doctrine was done away with toward the end of the Reagan Administration, IIRC.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 6th, 2011
6:13 pm
The laws of privacy are constantly evolving and what corporations can collect and sell. Of course, some may not have much to complain about. Using a Kroger card or similar discount reveals a great deal of information. Not using privacy filters on your web browser can reveal a lot. If you voluntarily disclose information, do you retain a right to privacy? Who’s responsible for your “choice” of disclosure? Again, if you have to hack into a system, there may have been a privacy expectation. If you take your trash to the street, its long established that you have no expectation of privacy.
Remember there is a group with the refrain “regulation bad”. Guess they are beginning to see the consequences. Who draws the lines for balance when you dont like it?
SKH
July 6th, 2011
6:13 pm
Dave R., Doggone/GA, Joe Mama, et alia (my apologies for omitting anyone, LOL): let’s please let it go now. Then, in just a few days (eons in Internet time), this will all have faded into oblivion
kayaker 71
July 6th, 2011
6:15 pm
And you don’t think that all of this hullabaloo wouldn’t exist without a profit motive? Fox, MSNBC, even the Today Show, which is fluff at it’s best/worst, exist on ratings and a bottom line. They are appealing to what the average dumb reader wants to hear. Ernie Kovacks, a popular 50s comedian, once said that the American viewing public was so dumb that they would break their arms turning to the Ed Sullivan show to watch some dog fart the Star Spangled Banner. Things haven’t changed much in 50 years.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 6th, 2011
6:16 pm
dogs farting the star spangled banner….is that on youtube?
Joe Mama
July 6th, 2011
6:18 pm
Keep — “….is that on youtube?”
Look around a while and I bet you can find it. I have constantly been amazed and appalled at what you can find on there.
A person who's privacy has been violated
July 6th, 2011
6:21 pm
“Remember there is a group with the refrain “regulation bad”. Guess they are beginning to see the consequences.”
Hoist with my own petard.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
July 6th, 2011
6:22 pm
Joe, it does have that polarized “best of” and “lowest common denominator” nature to it. But that’s always been true of media, its just one of the latest forms.
Doggone/GA
July 6th, 2011
6:22 pm
“Feel free to let us all know how you feel following YOUR first death threat received, Doggone”
No need. People who have been here long enough already know.
Left wing management
July 6th, 2011
6:22 pm
Joe Mama: “The Fairness Doctrine was done away with toward the end of the Reagan Administration, IIRC.”
That is correct I believe.And we’re the worse for it.
kayaker 71
July 6th, 2011
6:22 pm
Keep,
The amazing thing is that you would probably watch it.
godless heathen
July 6th, 2011
6:24 pm
Let’s not forget the way the US media has been after the lovely Huntress from Wasilla. Pounced on her emails like a pack of jackals when they were released, they did, Mighty disappointed they were when there was nothing salacious or damning in them. Any number of “legitimate” news organizations on this side of the pond would not hesitate to hack her personal accounts if they had the chance.
Dave R.
July 6th, 2011
6:24 pm
Off to feed the canines and ME!
Mighty Righty
July 6th, 2011
6:24 pm
“Personally, I think we’ve found the better balance here. We have more legal leeway to cover affairs of state aggressively, but as a rule are more respectful of the law and personal privacy. On the other hand, in an Internet age, the ability of the indusstry as a whole to discipline itself in such matters is fast eroding, and there’s not a whole lot that the traditional media can do about that.”
Jay, you wouldn’t endorse going through Sarah Palin’s trash would you? How about the New York Times soliciting volunters for the sole purpose of turning up dirt on Sarah? Is the gray lady traditional media? I guess I gave trouble seeing the diference between legitimate news media and scandal raking rags.
Joe Mama
July 6th, 2011
6:27 pm
Heathen — “Let’s not forget the way the US media has been after the lovely Huntress from Wasilla. Pounced on her emails like a pack of jackals when they were released, they did, Mighty disappointed they were when there was nothing salacious or damning in them.”
My wife and I were discussing this over the holiday weekend, and I wouldn’t be so sure. Just because nothing’s come out doesn’t mean there’s nothing in them — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I suspect that if Palin declares as a Presidential candidate and gains traction, you will see some things coming out of those e-mail messages. I feel certain that there’s oppo research on both the Democratic and GOP sides looking into those archived e-mail messages.