Everyone appears to be having their take on the phone-hacking saga, and with the last edition of the News of the World out on Sunday, it is a rare opportunity for all those who despise the Murdoch press (myself included) to partake in a spot of schadenfreude and maybe even a small slice of self-indulgence. Whether News International launch a shiny, scandal-free new Sunday rag or not in the coming weeks, a great many people have endeavoured to bring down what was the most rotten of edifices. Massive kudos goes to all those advertisers who had the balls to let their money talk, along with the individuals and groups who campaigned to put pressure on them in the first instance. The impending decision on the BSkyB takeover may have had something to do with the closure of NOTW, but the role of ordinary citizens in this victory for decency and people power should not be underestimated.

What disappoints me in this sense is the popular and populist call for tighter regulation of the tabloid press in particular. Firstly, this is not a regulation issue – the News of the World, and it must be said, other newspapers, would appear to have been involved in outright criminality for the best part of a decade, and this is a question not of ‘beefing up’ one of the media’s many paper tigers passing as watchdogs, but involves finding those who hacked the phones of Milly Dowler and others, establishing who gave the order to do so, and sending all involved to chokey for a few years. Please, no open nicks, no ex-editors or reporters seen weaving baskets in a Butlin’s camp – if Rebekah Brooks was in on it, then she deserves the full ‘Bad Girls’ treatment in Holloway, while Andy Coulson, if guilty, should be anticipating an awkward encounter or two with Bubba in the shower. I’ve already come to terms with the fact that the beautiful mental image of Rupert himself being led away from the court for a spot of porridge is not going to happen, but hey it was a nice thought while it lasted…

The most depressing element of this, however, is that the calls for the state to step in and shackle the press through the statute book displays a complete lack of understanding of exactly what public outrage and subsequent action really achieved. Yes, the death of the News of the World may be a tactical move by News International to keep the Sky deal alive, but this manoeuvre was only made a necessity by the sincere angst felt by the population as a whole, and understood by the advertisers who walked away from a toxic brand in droves. The very simple response for the rest of us, had the NOTW stayed open, would have been to stage a mass boycott of the paper, thereby driving the rag out of business in a matter of weeks. We don’t need the government to hold our hand, it is perfectly possible to implement change ourselves by taking our money elsewhere.

On Friday morning I dipped into a newsagents for my daily deck of John Player, and noticed a newspaper on the counter with Brooks splashed across the front page. “God, she’s a difficult woman to stick up for eh?”, I suggested while waiting for my card to scan. “I’m saying nothing – we all bought those papers” was the unexpected but welcome reply from the woman behind the counter. This stopped me in my tracks before I smiled and answered, “hand on heart – I haven’t bought the Sun or the News of the World for more than ten years”. This is absolutely true – I was raised in a Sun-reading household and grew to detest its cheap populism, casual xenophobia and simpleton analysis of complicated issues long before I left home. I should state in the interests of honesty that I may have bought the Times once or twice in the last few years while I had time to kill, for shame…

Staying on the topic of straight-talk, my friend has clearly been a News of the World reader for several years, and has no intentions of changing the typical habits of her Sabbath, “Oh I love reading all the gossip and stories” she said, and with that, I left her to serve the rest of the shop’s customers and admired the fact that she saw it was not her place to be sanctimonious about the question of phone-hacking. Any successor to the Screws has at least one reader and it’s no business of mine what she spends her money on. However, those who have read such stories in the past and now feel a sense of disgust upon hearing how they were obtained should not be asking the state to step in and allow them to indulge in gossip, scandal and tittle-tattle with a clear conscience. Either state openly that you like this stuff more than you’ll ever be upset about phone-hacking, or stop buying these rags completely, and then express your outrage from a genuine and sincere position.

While Britain may have undergone something of a sexual liberation in the last 40 years ago, a trace of our previously prudish attitude towards the subject appears to have remained, and manifested itself in an obsession with “who’s fucking who”. Without it, there would be no market for the Screws and other newspapers to invest time and money in the ‘scoops’ that scandal stories represent, and it would also remove the commercial pressure on them to up the stakes and move from trawling through people’s rubbish or asking their neighbours for gossip, and into somewhat darker territory. This culture creeps into our everyday lives, with workplace rumour mills mutating every conversation between members of the opposite sex into a steamy and passionate romp. Office parties become excuses for the opening of industrial-sized gossip factories in the days and weeks beforehand, churning out innuendo and poison on an epic and immensely sad scale.

I’ve got better things to do with my time, and so don’t bother with the rumour plant or corporate functions any more (see the OutSpokenRabbit if you’re interested in that subject). Nor could I really care less about the sex lives of public figures unless they have made a point of lecturing the rest of us on the theme of ‘good old fashioned, wholesome family values’. As a country, we just appear to have a highly immature approach to the subject, and when one fuses this with the way in which so many people see ‘the collective’ (usually enforced by the state) as everything, it is little wonder that the personal privacy of individuals is given so little regard.

So random footballer, actor or musician fucked random bimbo in random hotel while doing half a gram of coke – good for him. I don’t know about you, but I’d be more worried if they were doing nothing more exciting than a mug of Ovaltine, two slices of toast and an early night. If one of our young and famous hasn’t been involved in a drink and/or drug fuelled act of debauchery in the last year or so, then I might want to read about that, mark their efforts ‘must try harder’ and advise them to re-read the manual that explains the rules of being a somebody. Other than that, no I don’t wish to know every lurid detail, and fail to square how someone could do so and then preach about the intrusive and illegal activities of the rag that brought them the exclusive in the first place.

Yes I want closure to this as much as anyone, and understand that a full enquiry is bound to drag other national newspapers into mud on a comparable scale to that in which the ‘the News of the World’ has justifiably sunk. Only seeing executives, editors and bent coppers in the dock will truly bring this sense of finality, and it will be interesting to put it mildly to see how the case pans out. However, before you nod your head in agreement with that sentiment, ask yourself if you intend to buy the Screws or its successor – if you don’t, or just want to create a Murdoch bonfire in your garden, then many thanks for reading and take care. However, there will almost certainly be numbers running into millions who will express supposed upset about phone-hacking and then spend their own money on the publication that carried it out on an industrial scale.

They should either be honest enough to admit they don’t care, like my friend in the newsagent did, or save their phoney angst for someone else.

Daz Pearce – OutspokenRabbit

carol42 July 10, 2011 at 22:40

I wonder about all this supposed outrage, yes the Milly Dowler incident was
very unpleasant but if the hacking had found her it would have been hailed as
heroic. I have never read either the NOW or The Sun except for the occasional
opinion column but I think the way that this has been handled is hypocritical
nonsense. No one I have spoken to is all that much bothered about it and
remember these are still allegations. I am more concerned about the police
corruption and certain that all the press is involved in illegal payments and
the use of unsavoury private investigators. Surely it is obvious to everyone
that all the rival media and the BBC are out to stop the takeover of BSkyB at
any price. As to Coulson, the police had cleared him at the time so why not
employ him, if he gave assurances and there seemed no reason not to believe
him. That idiot Milliband said today that he had been given assurances by
Baldwin, who also has questions to answer and worked for the Times so what’s
the difference? Whatever you think of Murdoch he revived the newpaper industry
when he took on the print unions and took a huge gamble launching Sky, without
that there would have been no Independent and I doubt many others would have
survived. The Guardian used illegally obtained material from Willileaks,
potentially much more damaging than accessing someone’s phone. Likewise the
Telegraph with the expenses, that I think was definitely in the public
interest but I can’t see how willileaks was. It will serve them all right if
they are now shackled with more restrictions. The sight of Campbell, whose
honesty was questioned in court, before we even start on his conduct in no.10
and the odious Prescott pontificating makes me want to cheer for Murdoch.

Cascadian July 10, 2011 at 20:58

Thank you, low resolution for stating what most are missing……….”News of the
world was a loss making business”. And is it not surprising that the “largest
newspaper in the world” was bought by …….apparently nobody except Gildas.

Newspapers are a twentieth century failed model, and owners are thrashing
about trying to figure out how to divest them. You can expect that the very
successful model of exposing low grade celebrities (footballers, soap
actresses, MP’s, IMF bankers) actions will continue, it has a huge following.
I suspect it will continue on TV in future. There is already a very large
following of dreck disguised as reality TV (real househookers of ….., big fat
gypo’s, corrie) a natural progression could easily include the type of
reporting NoTW is best at.

Amongst all the hypocrisy and condemnation I wonder if anybody could mount
an argument that the guardians ongoing attachment to global warming and
generous funding amongst universities and NGO’s to maintain this fiction, has
diverted badly needed funding from hospital budgets and social programmes
which have literally killed people and will kill many poor people in future
winters as the electricity supply is rationed. Perhaps the camoron can direct
a little of his hypocritical fury at the Guardian and withdraw all government
advertising.

Surely killing people is as serious a crime as accessing somebody’s voice
messages (I refuse to call this hacking).

Saul July 10, 2011 at 23:48

Spot on!

low resolution
July 10, 2011 at 15:11

News of the world was a loss making business, which was a poster boy for
perhaps the worst excesses of illegal activities in the UK media.

If someone was to say “curb the excesses on this, have a general clean up
and we’ll give you the go ahead to merge News international”, based on
dropping a paper that didn’t make any money?

Standard hysterical drama ensues, murdered schoolgirl, dead soldiers. PR
smell all over it. Hopefully this is all just setting a moral example to make
it patently obvious that this behaviour is not acceptable in the industry. But
to do so high profile heads must roll, nothing else is permissible.

SadButMadLad
July 10, 2011 at 19:05

News of the World was profit making not loss making. News Group
Newspapers Ltd (which ownsed
the NoW and the Sun) made a profit of £86m in the year to June 2010, and the
Now had a 27% market share of the Sunday newspapers.

Low
resolution July 11, 2011 at 13:25

I’m going to assume you know better than me since I based it on a
general statement on BBC, but this article (under political dimensions)
appeared to state it was loss making. I’m sure I’ve seen other places
state losses of circa £20m per year?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/business-14044052

SadButMadLad July
11, 2011 at 17:16

I think the phrase “Moreover, News of the World – and its newspaper
business as a whole – is a small part of News Corp’s revenue-base and a
loss-making one at that.” means that the newspaper business part of New
Corp is loss making, not just the NoW. The NoW itself is profitable.
Unless some serious mismanagement is going on it should be with more
than a quarter of the Sunday newspaper market and 2.1m readers. I got my
figures from an unbiased source

Gewyne July 10, 2011 at 15:05

Why is it always people who have never bought a item (in this case NoTW)
that so enthusiastically cheer on boycotts. The readers are not responsible
for the criminality of the company. If a car, book, soda, cheeseburger,
newspaper is on sale then I should be able to buy it in the knowledge it is
not involved in crime (if it is then it should be charged, and I can continue
to buy the product I like).

Watching on Thursday, everyone gleefully putting the boot into the NoTW,
cheering as sponsors pulled, smiling after revelation after revelation was
announced was just unpleasant. Then to see the same people on Friday with
their crocodile tears when News Corp announced the paper would be closed
suddenly feel sorry for people being put out of work, blaming News Corp and
Miss Brookes. Saying it wasn’t NoTW who should have been sacrificed… what
complete hypocrits.

People in this country love to be morally outraged at something, the reason
so many are currently loving these stories (ironically the reason so many
bought NoTW in the first place).

Zaphod July 10, 2011 at 14:19

Those who buy a paper are responsible for what it does, indeed. But they
can abandon it any time.

I would like to see Murdoch’s empire wounded by this, because the quantity
of power he has amassed in unhealthy. But I confess to some admiration for his
abilities and achievements.

Capitalism works. It delivers what most people want. Natural selection
finds those best at delivering it. And occasionally a capitalist slips up
badly, and is eventually replaced. Anyone who fancies their chances can have a
go. Meanwhile, the rest of us get a choice of goods and employment. It works
reasonably well.

Bob July 10, 2011 at 15:08

I dearly wish that the same loathing, and desire for damage, which is
vented almost universally at the Murdoch media monolith could be also
directed at that other far worse, perverted, putrid media monolith, the
BBC.

Daz
Pearce July 10, 2011 at 15:38

No apologist for the BBC here Bob – all for making the licence fee
optional.

Lerxst July 10, 2011 at 22:50

Seconded. And the Beeb have been at their word-twisting best in recent
days.

One example was Clive Myhre interviewing Shane Greer about Murdoch
shutting down NotW earlier in the week. Asked to give his assessment,
Greer said it was probably ‘a very shrewd move’, as it removed a toxic
target, plus by pushing The Sun to 7 day publication, Murdoch could
maintain the revenue stream but also reduce costs. Myhre turns round and
says “So you believe this is just a highly cynical exercise and Murdoch
has been looking to close down the NotW for some time”. Talk about
twisting words…

Lerxst July 10, 2011 at 23:05

This is perhaps the closest posting I’ve seen to my own view. I have
absolutely nothing against Rupert Murdoch. His ownership of British media
may or may not be unhealthy, but he’s got there by being a very effective
businessman. The market share of his companies is down to the fact that they
generally deliver what the people want. The firm may have slipped up now,
but the personal vitriol being aimed at Murdoch by the Beeb, Guardian,
Labour and other usual suspects makes me wish him well.

I say that as someone who wouldn’t have touched the NotW with a bargepole
and while I’ve read the Sun, I’ve never bought a copy. That said, my paper
of choice is a News International publication, namely The Times. Let’s face
it, looking at the alternatives, The Telegraph stopped being a newspaper
years ago and is now little more than a comic; and the Independent is full
of sanctimonious drivel. The only other serious paper is the Guardian, but a
daily diet of its left wing cant would be liable to bring on a heart
attack.

Gildas the Monk
July 10, 2011 at 13:59

A fair and well argued point. I have to confess a fair but of hypocrisy or
at least lack of clarity on the issue. I have to say I found “the Screws”
generally too seedy and salacious for my tastes, but I suppose I would buy it
sometimes if there was some headline story I did actually want to follow. I
was completely indifferent to hacking “celebs” and MP’s (like most people),
but incandescent when I heard about the Millie Dowler issue. And yet I bought
the last edition for sentiments sake! So I am not consistent, But then, logic
isnt everything!

Daz
Pearce July 10, 2011 at 14:18

Hi Gildas – that last edition may be worth something at auction one
day…

We all have our illogical moments – the MPs expenses data was also
obtained illegally, but then nobody was terribly upset about that…I would
usually take the view that you can’t justify criminal behaviour because the
victim ‘deserved it’ – therein lies the road to anarchy – but we all smiled
at those crooked MPs getting their come-uppance…

ivan July 10, 2011 at 13:05

First off I’ll admit the last time I read the NoW was back in 1959 and I
don’t care about the supposed ‘hacking’. OK, what do we actually know about
this ‘hacking’ furore created by a rival paper that would rather no one looked
at their actual hacking of private e-mails – in my view a much more serious
offence. All we know is that someone rang a number typed in 4 numbers and
listened to some drivel on some z rated individuals phone – something that
kids with smart phones do a lot of the time.

The fact a paper did it, there are other papers doing it as well with most
of them having been shown to have done it more times than the NoW, is what
apparently creates the fuss not the fact that those that had their drivel
listened to were too dumb to change the defaults on their phones.

What it boils down to is several vocal peoples dislike of Murdoch and the
left wanting revenge for the fact he stopped supporting the party before the
last election – so what, isn’t a person allowed to change their mind in this
day and age? Since most of the left just want non thinking drones I suppose
their reaction is to be expected.

What we are left with is the left leaning papers having shot themselves in
the foot if regulations are brought in, so bring it on.

Daz
Pearce July 10, 2011 at 13:21

Afternoon Ivan – someone asked me yesterday how the Screws were so
confident that Tommy Sheridan had lied in court – now we know…

You say, “the fact a paper did it, there are other papers doing it as
well with most of them having been shown to have done it more times than the
NoW, is what apparently creates the fuss not the fact that those that had
their drivel listened to were too dumb to change the defaults on their
phones.”

Well of course that should be the main focus – I realised this morning
I’d forgotten to lock my front door. Not clever, but does that excuse the
actions of someone who walks in and steals the TV and furniture? I hope
not!!

I’ll admit an anti-Murdoch bias, but any fair and impartial investigation
will almost certainly drag other newspapers in and of course that’s a good
thing.

Senior Moment
July 10, 2011 at 16:44

Good point about the front door.

Recently, not only did I forget to lock the front door, I left the key
in the lock ON THE OUTSIDE. Thank God when I returned a few hours later
everything was I had left it (with the key still in the lock).

That said… the stories one hears about todays Police, I’m lucky the
local plod didn’t confiscate all my belongings – to teach me to be more
careful, you understand.

ivan July 10, 2011 at 21:01

Not locking you door was the norm in the 40s and 50s but we are in the
digital age now.

The cry about hacking is false, what I and a few others are doing is
hacking – we are trying to complete an unfinished beta program sent out by
a company that has closed down so leaving the equipment only part working.
What the papers did is more like reading the letters of someone that left
them by an open window and the wind blew them out into the street.
Changing the defaults is the equivalent of keeping the window closed.

That being said, until there is hard evidence to the contrary it is all
speculation on the part of people that want to divert scrutiny away from
themselves.

SadButMadLad July
10, 2011 at 22:22

I would disagree that default PINs on voicemail is the equivalent of
an open window. It’s a barrier, admittedly weak, but it’s still a
barrier. Any barrier is recognised as meaning only authorised people can
pass. So it’s more like someone opening a gate walking down the path to
the house and looking in at a window through ventian blinds which just
happen to allow viewing of something on the window sill. Most people
will recognise the “barriers” and not pass unless they had reason to do
so. The private investigators who listened to the voicemail walked past
the closed gate and peered into the window.

Your work is more reverse engineering than hacking. Reverse
engineering is legal. Hacking is not generally considered illegal as
most of the time no damage is done, but it is still unauthorised access.
Cracking is illegal in that the activities are generally for personal
financial gain or to deny others of their rightful profit.

ivan
July 11, 2011 at 01:05

Yes, I like your illustration better than mine but that was all I
could think of at the time as I was trying to show the stupidity of
many people not thinking in a digital age. I wonder how much of the
non thinking is due to not being taught to think in school?

What we are doing is a bit of both reverse engineering and hacking
– we have to hack parts to allow us to reverse engineer other parts

Dave H July 10, 2011 at 12:45

I haven’t bought a national newspaper for many years, probably more than
ten. I did buy several copies of the local one when I got a mention in it, but
that was so I could send them to relatives who were interested.