The week’s dominating story surrounding the phone hacking allegations made by News of the World (NOTW) journalists is becoming an ever increasing business and publicity nightmare for News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. This afternoon’s announcement that Britain’s biggest selling newspaper will stop printing after 168 years is a serious blow to the revenue stream of the world’s most famous media mogul. With probable criminal investigations and multiple public inquires into the scandal much scrutiny is being placed on News International’s Chief Executive Rebekah Wade (former editor of the NOTW) and her successor Andy Coulson (and deputy at the time) who later went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary. Yet how much scrutiny should also be focussed on the Prime Minister? Many commentators believe politicians kowtow to easily the media, especially the printing presses, but is Mr Cameron’s slow response subject to what some may say is an unhealthy relationship.
According to sales figures from March the newspapers (The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and NOTW) from News Corp sell well over 23 million copies each week. Even in a medium where circulation is dropping year on year) the power of newspapers to drive opinion is still an extremely important vehicle for politicians to maintain. Under Mrs Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch enjoyed an extremely healthy relationship and used his friendship to acquire the Times, without it being referred to the Monopoly Commission. He in turn used his power to back Maggie in her fights against the Miners and in Brussels. Later on, during the New Labour years, armed with two fierce media men, former political editor of the Daily Mirror Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair was able to contrive most editors into plugging his vision of a new Britain. It became extremely insidious and some of the press had sympathies with the government after the Iraq War and the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.
So is Cameron really at fault? Is it not part of the political game? He courted the Murdoch press during his time in opposition and they forcibly backed him against the dithering Gordon Brown in the 2010 election. Does he not owe them a favour in return? There are plenty of examples from overseas, particularly America, that show what problems Presidents can face when they get on to the wrong side of the press. The Watergate scandal saw the downfall of Richard Nixon and many saw the end of Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency down to the press coverage of the Vietnam War. The CBS anchor Walter Cronkite famously reported that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” to which LBJ was reported to have said “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Since these times politicians have seen it as a duty to court the press. As Enoch Powell said “Politicians criticising journalists is like sailors criticising the weather”. They are in affect part of the game.
Cameron is known to dine regularly with the likes of Matthew Freud, a PR man who is married to one Elisabeth Murdoch and he also attended the wedding of Brookes two years ago. So far, the Murdoch press has been very loyal to the coalition Government, yet the resignation of Andy Coulson was when many questioned started to question Mr Cameron’s own integrity.
This is particularly why the Prime Minister needs to be careful, people will think the delay and dithering of his response come down to the fact that he does not want to decapitate a Government-endorsing newspaper. When questions are now being raised that the PM knew that Coulson was complicit in signing off cheques to bribe policemen then the pernicious details do not look favourably on Mr Cameron or the Murdochs. The reputation of the British press is notoriously sensationalist and scandal based, but the public fury and ethical questions being asked are not good all round, Mr Cameron should be aware of this and know when issues are in the interest of the people rather than himself.
Showing posts with label Andy Coulson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Coulson. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Hackgate: Give me a story now!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)