Marjorie Smith
The very recent ruling by the Press Complaints Commission over News International journalists' illegal phone-tapping activities reveals two (now) blatantly obvious facts and several areas of great concern.
Firstly the PCC is a pliant, duplicitous and pathetic 'self-regulatory body' that has finally shredded what remaining credibility it had. It has demonstrated that it is utterly incapable of fulfilling the role for which it was set-up. It is nothing more than an excuse-mongerer for the worst excesses of the tabloid press.
Secondly, that under his tutelage, Rupert Murdoch through his minions conducted a wide-ranging intelligence gathering exercise that was not merely about gathering celebrity tittle-tattle. but also targeted senior political figures and others in positions of power and influence in the UK.
The PCC's claim that it is independent is fatuous in the extreme. To prove that some newspapers act with impunity when it comes to their nefarious activities, one illuminating example tells you everything you need to know. In a fact that is beyond satire, the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, is the Chair of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. One should also compare the number of complaints about press behaviour and add up the complaints not taken up by the PCC (because they are, allegedly, inadmissible) with those complaints they conduct a cursory investigation. Compared this with those cases they find against a newspaper and you will discover the results are laughable.
The legalistic and journalistic contortions that the PCC goes through in its 'investigations' and pronouncements which it uses to justify the activities of the printed media in the UK is nothing short of an outright disgrace. One startling example should be indicative on its own. The PCC does not have one member of Staff with any significant experience of being an investigator, not one. Yet it claims to conduct investigations.
Just also to underline how much it puts itself beyond ridicule, Peter Hill, when he was the editor of the Daily Star (yes, that shining example of tabloid journalism), was one of three editors of national newspapers on the Commission.
Or that 'the red-socked fop' (©John Prescott), Sir Christopher Meyer, was the Chair of the PCC from 1993 to 1999. In his account of his time in America as the UK's ambassador, in the best-selling book entitled DC Confidential, he angered Foreign Office colleagues who felt he had betrayed their profession by breaking the vow of confidentiality. Only a fundamentally-flawed organization as the PCC could believe that such a character would be a suitable figurehead.
Rupert Murdock's journalists have been exposed as gathering intelligence on thousands of people through nefarious means. This goes to the heart of his organisation in the UK. What did senior people at the News of the World (NoW), the Sun and at News International (NI) know about the activities at the NoW.
NI through at least one of its agents (NoW) was responsible for gathering personal and sensitive information on thousands of people. Perhaps the persons gathering (and more importantly utilising) such information ought to be referred to as N.I. 5 and N.I. 6.
It is utterly inconceivable in a modern–day organisation that has to have it's copy checked by lawyers, that has its expenditure audited by top accountancy firms and at each paper is overseen by an all-powerful editor, who reports to senior executives at NI, would be totally ignorant of the activities of its journalists.
There was undoubtedly, a hierarchy of command in the NoW directly feeding into NI. The only journalist at the NoW who they admit was involved is Clive Goodman, the ex-Royal Editor. Goodman was found to have paid a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, thousands upon thousands of pounds to provide phone-tapped material. From what we know of the material provided, this was extremely high value information for a tabloid newspaper. The payments for such information must have run into the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Such information, when used to write stories by Goodman (and no doubt others) would have been the subject of checking by not just assistant editors at the NoW, but their in-house lawyers and by the, then editor, himself, Andy Colson. This is because stories about high-profile figures would inevitably be considered as front-page leads, which is for the editor to decide. Furthermore, because of the fame of the subject of such stories, approval would also have had to be gained from NI HQ.
It is beyond belief that at no stage did the hierarchy of command not know what the provenance of the story was, i.e. what is the basis of fact on which a story is based, what the source of that story is? Is the source reliable? How did we obtain the story? Is the evidence used to back-up the story obtained by legal means? Etc. etc. Crucially, if the story (stories) is/are based on material gained illegally, then the decision to uses such material must have been approved at the highest level in NI.
It is also beyond belief that, the monies paid for the information provided, was solely paid for by Goodman to Mulcaire. Whether in the form of cash or other forms of payment to Mulcaire, there must be a paper trail within NoW that can account for the monies paid to Mulcaire. There is somebody in management and in accounts who must have known what these payments where for and what payment methods were used to pay for such information.
It should also be noted that although only the NoW, has been found to have acted in a contemptible manner, it strains credulity to breaking point to think that similar activities were taking place at the Sun. With the shared-culture of both, the cross-fertilisation so beloved of Murdoch's empire and the switching of editors and other senior journalists between the two titles it would be impossible to keep such secrets from each other within the confines of their joint offices at Wapping.
Self-regulation like self-abuse, is no substitute for the real thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment