Comment: News of the World phone hacking scandal
Baroness Buscome, Chair of the PCC, spoke on BBC Five Live this morning – listen here, from 2:47:00.
When asked if Rebekah Brooks should take responsibility, Baroness Buscome responded that she must take responsibility for her actions, but also that the blame clearly rests with the journalists and executive that allowed this to happen. She said they have a lot more to hear, espcially from the police who didn’t carry out a proper inquiry in 2003.
She also said she has called the commission together, and has said that they need to accelerate change. Independent commissioners will lead this – people that have nothing to do with the press.
The interviewer mentioned that Baroness Buscome had previously said that the PPC had not been told the truth, and that there was only so much they can do when people are lying. She was reluctant to name any individual that had lied to them.
When asked who she had spoken to, she said that she was ‘not going to be boxed into a corner on who exactly I spoke to’. She did say that she had spoken to Colin Myler in the past, and that she hasn’t spoken to Les Hinton. When asked if she had spoken to Rebekah Brooks, she said she had spoken to a number of senior people in the past.
Baroness Buscome continuned, saying that her role is to work to raise standards, and that ‘something good has to come out of this’. She said that in January this year, she set up a review to look at ‘this whole phone hacking nightmare’. They have been working with the police since January, and what is important is that this is a police inquiry. She did not want to say anything that might jeopardise that, and jeopardise the truth.
She also added that the whole issue of going forward is about the protocol around the news gathering personal information. She has been trying to gain the support of publishers of all national newspapers, in coming up with a mandatory protocol across the industry about how journalists and edtiors actually gather personal information, because with technology ‘there are other means that we haven’t even dreamt of yet’.
She finished by saying ‘I am deeply concerned, because at the end of the day, and I’ve said it on your programme before, it’s so important that investigative journalism is free to root out right from wrong, but there have to be serious parameters’.
Nicola Mendelsohn, president of the IPA, also spoke on BBC Five Live this morning – listen here, from 2:55:00.
Mendelsohn said that this is obviously an important issue for advertisers, as we’ve already seen a number of them pulling out. When asked what side she would take in this situation, she said that this is an issue for each of the different advertisers, and they will have to decide by listening to their consumers and doing what’s right for them.
Other points made were that advertisers are still using News International, but are just not using News of the World. Additionally, many of the advertisers haven’t permanently removed their advertising, but are ‘reviewing’ their policy. This could quite possibly be only a temporary problem.
The interviewer asked whether advertisers should be able to influence who they are advertising with, and Mendelsohn pointed out that advertisers ‘are people too’, and have moral concerns. She added that ‘as a mother’, she had been appalled by the allegations.
Finally, she said that if people are upset with the News of the World, then they aren’t going to buy it, and aren’t going to see the advertisements. If people are not upset with the News of the World, and do purchase it, then they’re not going to be upset with the brands advertising inside it.
Your comments:
This story calls into question the broader nature of corporate responsibility. It’s excellent that large and well known brands are expressing a concern about the issues surrounding News International, and acting on them. Admiration should be given to these brands that are pioneering a stand amongst their peers and standing up for what they believe is right.
And on Raymond Snoddy’s related article, ‘Show Murdoch the money drifting away, and you will get his undivided attention’:
In the case of Rebekah Brooks, in order for Mr Murdoch to maintain external business credibility and an internal power base, and therefore protect his commercial empire, there can only be one outcome, and the sooner the axe falls the better for all concerned.
As far as the good name of “UK journalism” is concerned, there must be one other casualty. The PCC has shown its complicit agenda and toothless nature, when it had a real opportunity to demonstrate legitimacy.
The days of self regulation for the British press may soon be over, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
It’s about time a tabloid like the News of the World had a taste of its own medicine and is challenged about its approach. The huge demand in 24/7 news has led to an increase in extreme tactics in order to produce more and more stories to compete with competitors.
In my opinion, news generation has dramatically escalated to expose all the explicit details of people’s private lives rather than reporting on more important events happening in the world. Sensationalising stories that really are so unimportant will have a serious impact on the ability to conduct serious investigative journalism. Is this what we really want?