The political story dominating the media this week is the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World (NOTW). The story first came out several months ago but has re-emerged after the republication in The New York Times. The main protagonist in this story is the former editor Andy Coulson, who now happens to be David Cameron's communication chief. However, also part of the unfolding drama includes the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, owner of the NOTW.
The basic story is that several journalists at the newspaper hacked into the voicemails of allegedly hundreds of politicians, celebrities and public figures to find out stories about them. Mr Coulson, who left to eventually become Mr Cameron's press chief, denies any knowledge of such subordination at the time of his tenure. However, an investigation by The New York Times claims that many of the journalists, who worked at the paper, claim he was aware of the hacking and that he lied to officers investigating the claims. MPs are currently voting to see whether an inquiry should be held and figures put in front of a Commons Select Committee.
If you ignore the obvious breaches of privacy then what does this reflect? What if Coulson was lying? It probably does not affect Mr Cameron in anyway but it would probably cause some embarrassment for the PM into Coulson's original appointment. He was in charge when the Royal editor of the paper was jailed for breaching security procedures to get a staff member a job at Buckingham Palace, something he saw as rogue rather than inherent. People will also ask that if Coulson knew, then it was likely that others knew too: Rebekah Brooks (Head of BSkyB), James Murdoch (Chief Exec of News Corp) and then ultimately Rupert. This questions the whole validity of journalism and ethics of News Corporation as a whole and the potential damaging cover-up it undertook.
There is certainly a hidden interest from the New York Times because of Murdoch's acquistion of the Wall Street Journal and the combative tactics used against its rivals, but what about the wider public? I honestly don't think too many people are interested in the essence of the story. It is reported seriously by the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4, but not many more. The nature of celebrity culture and gossip driven scandal sells newspapers and magazines; not to mention gives everyone something to talk about at the water cooler. It may be that the NOTW are being implicated but if the story evolves it may become likely that other newspapers were doing the same thing. Expect this story to evolve.
The basic story is that several journalists at the newspaper hacked into the voicemails of allegedly hundreds of politicians, celebrities and public figures to find out stories about them. Mr Coulson, who left to eventually become Mr Cameron's press chief, denies any knowledge of such subordination at the time of his tenure. However, an investigation by The New York Times claims that many of the journalists, who worked at the paper, claim he was aware of the hacking and that he lied to officers investigating the claims. MPs are currently voting to see whether an inquiry should be held and figures put in front of a Commons Select Committee.
If you ignore the obvious breaches of privacy then what does this reflect? What if Coulson was lying? It probably does not affect Mr Cameron in anyway but it would probably cause some embarrassment for the PM into Coulson's original appointment. He was in charge when the Royal editor of the paper was jailed for breaching security procedures to get a staff member a job at Buckingham Palace, something he saw as rogue rather than inherent. People will also ask that if Coulson knew, then it was likely that others knew too: Rebekah Brooks (Head of BSkyB), James Murdoch (Chief Exec of News Corp) and then ultimately Rupert. This questions the whole validity of journalism and ethics of News Corporation as a whole and the potential damaging cover-up it undertook.
There is certainly a hidden interest from the New York Times because of Murdoch's acquistion of the Wall Street Journal and the combative tactics used against its rivals, but what about the wider public? I honestly don't think too many people are interested in the essence of the story. It is reported seriously by the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4, but not many more. The nature of celebrity culture and gossip driven scandal sells newspapers and magazines; not to mention gives everyone something to talk about at the water cooler. It may be that the NOTW are being implicated but if the story evolves it may become likely that other newspapers were doing the same thing. Expect this story to evolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment