By Brian Cathcart
As Corporal Jones might have said, they don’t like it up ‘em. The ruthless methods of mass circulation papers are being exposed at the Leveson inquiry as never before, so they are lashing out like cornered animals.
Their attacks on the Guardian this week in relation to last July’s Milly Dowler story (see the Mail’s headline: “The false allegation that ‘led to 200 people losing their jobs’”) reveal a self-delusion and a mood of furious denial that will only land them in worse trouble. The editors meet today (Thursday) to review their position; for their sakes and the sakes of their employees you have to hope they can talk sense into each other.
It was not the Guardian that got them into the mess they are now in. Nor was it the Milly Dowler story of last July. It was years of irresponsible, reckless, cruel behaviour that was perpetrated by a minority in their midst and was far too widely tolerated and excused in the industry. It was not voicemail hacking alone, but years of journalists not caring a damn for people they wrote about and not respecting the people they wrote for.
Suggesting that one article made all the difference is like saying that Gavrilo Princip, the Sarajevo assassin, was solely responsible for the First World War, or that a Wimbledon final is decided purely on the last point played. A mountain of straws broke this camel’s back, not just one.
The implication of what they have been saying this week is this: they want to turn back the clock. They would like Rebekah Brooks back in charge at News International with her shabby cronies Colin Myler and Tom Crone by her side. They miss the days when Andy Coulson was in Downing Street, when Rupert Murdoch was pulling strings and when John Yates was a big wheel at Scotland Yard. They might just accept that a police investigation into phone hacking was necessary, providing it picked off only reporters and not executives like them.
Above all, they desperately want us to believe the discredited ‘one rogue newspaper’ scenario, the pretence that no paper but the News of the World had anything to answer for. In the teeth of all the evidence, they would like is to think that phone hacking existed in isolation and had no connection with the brutal, dishonest culture that monstered Christopher Jefferies, the McCanns, Robert Murat, Colin Stagg, Barry George and so many others. And of course they would like to turn back the clock to the days before July, when they still brazenly passed off the Press Complaints Commission as a paragon of rigour and rectitude.
This is delusional, but it is consistent with what has gone before. Remember, these newspapers collectively refused to report the unravelling hacking scandal for two years: so far as they possibly could, they hid it from their readers in a shameful abuse of power.
One of the purposes of the inquiry is to get at the truth. That takes time and for people who prefer the truth to be something you can throw together overnight this idea is clearly bewildering. Lord Justice Leveson hears witnesses and gathers evidence. He is hearing not only from victims of press abuse but from journalists; indeed he will hear from a parade of newspaper editors. At the end of this process Leveson will report, not only on the popular press, but, as he has made abundantly clear, also on the conduct of the Guardian. Good.
The editors, however, can’t stand this because it means that for the duration they do not have exclusive control of the megaphone in the way that they are used to. It means that the public has been able to hear the voices and stories of press victims for the first time, and the public has seen that what appears in print sometimes comes at a horrible, unacceptable price. It means that the editors are exposed to scrutiny. This clearly makes them angry.
It is interesting how the right wing press will go for any minor blip – the wonderful BBC series is dissed because of a bit of supposed fakery, the Guardian is lambasted for a story which actually the NoW has never really denied. Its war out there, and let’s not forget it.
Great piece, Brian.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the coverage I’ve watched at the Leveson Inquiry so far (not even taking into account the reporting of it by the news media itself) and what I’ve noticed is how the witnesses that have been defending the tabloid press and their practices all plead for the rights and respect they never bothered to afford their victims.
Fairness. Truth. Legal protection. Privacy. A right to go about their business without others judging them, fairly or otherwise. These are basic rights that all of us would like to attain but only a tabloid employee is allowed them, it would seem.
A litany of bad behaviour is being presented to us and we are not to judge; morally, ethically or legally? I’m sorry but the news media, possibly more than any other form, relies on the trust it builds with it’s readership. You can’t preach to us what is moral, what is ethical and what is legal when you don’t hold any of those concepts in any sort of regard yourself. And now we know how deep and how far this breakdown in basic fundamental decency goes, you still want us to trust you when you try to tell us what is right and what is wrong?
In a way, it is quite pleasing to see these attacks (Jules Stenson on Newsnight was almost apoplectic) in that they clearly believe their cages are being rattled and glimpses of the truth that has lain hidden for so many years is finally coming out into the open.
More power to The Guardians and Hacked offs elbows (although they may require a few patches from time to time).
Let us hope that Leveson presses on with the good work and Sue Akers finally delivers what the Met Police should have done years ago – I’ve got my fingers crossed on that one!
The media is only part of this story but I would echo Laura’s sentiment above about the need for an honest and decent press whatever the future holds for it commercially.
Basing the accuracy or otherwise of a story on relatively minor details is exactly how the PCC works (or doesn’t work). To complain about a story, you need to point out a factual inaccuracy, they reject complaints based on tone, lack of balance or uncritical quoting, which can make a story inaccurate without any of the details being incorrect.
Excellent and bang on.
If they hadn’t accessed the emails, they would never have been deleted. Many companies/systems automatically delete accessed emails after 2-3 days. Nobody else seems to be pointing this out.
I pointed this out somewhere else, but no-one’s picked it up and made a noise with it. Maybe we need to bang on a bit louder. If the act of accessing a message flags it for deletion at a later time, then it is tantamount to deletion provided there is no process that will intervene between access and deletion to unset the flag. It only takes one hacked message to cause a deletion and since the access of several messages is acknowledged on all sides, then the Guardian has no case to answer.
The “camel’s back” metaphor is fine as is. Straws can only break camels backs when they’re already loaded to breaking point.