Public not off the hook over phone hacking scandal

EDITORIAL
Public not off the hook over phone hacking scandal
By The Nation
Published on July 22, 2011


Reporters' greed for scoops was fed by readers' greed for sleaze

The story behind the media phone-hacking scandal, which has led to the demise of the News of the World, can be summed by one word: greed.

Of course, the kind of physical attack perpetrated against News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch on Tuesday must be condemned, regardless of how serious the allegation is, but the words of the pie-thrower at the UK parliamentary committee summed up the cause of the scandal overtaking his empire. The attacker was quoted as saying to Murdoch, "You are a greedy billionaire."

Now, the idea of greed is certainly not a taboo for business people. Many have managed to gain enormous wealth, driven by their desire for more money. These greedy folks often make successful businessmen on Wall Street.

But the scandal at the now-defunct News of the World exposes an alarming collision between greed and journalistic ethics. Needless to say, the ethics came off worse.

There is nothing wrong with an ambitious business mogul building an empire, but if that empire is built on unethical practices aimed at satisfying a public appetite for salacious scoops, then action has to be taken.

Early this month, the British public was outraged by reports that News of the World had hacked into the voice-mail of an abducted teenager, who was later murdered.

It was just the start of a string of allegations that have followed, involving the illegal attempt to obtain personal records from politicians, royalty and celebrities.

In fact, the allegations should not have come as a shock to News of the World readers. The paper has long been known for scoops gained by questionable means, and these have fed its robust sales figures over the years.

The paper assigned reporters to pose as sheikhs and coax Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, into the belief she was negotiating a business deal. Ferguson was embarrassed, but the story saw sales for that edition of the paper soar to more than 7 million. In that case, the paper defended its reporters' tactics by claiming the scoop was in the public interest.

But this time around, the public has been outraged by reports of widespread phone hacking to obtain personal information to sell stories.

The media mogul might deny any knowledge of such malpractice, but the News of the World seems to have encouraged this invasion of privacy in a desperate attempt to stay ahead of the Fleet Street competition. The bottom line was: As long as they sell, it doesn't matter how we get the stories.

The press can claim its right to freedom of information, regardless of the means. But in this case, the audience has voiced its strong disapproval over how the reporters got their stories. While some of these scoops were undoubtedly entertaining, there is a limit of appropriate or legal means beyond which journalists should not go.

Moreover, the News of the World can hardly claim that invading the privacy of celebrities, for example, was done legitimately in the public interest. Rather, they were treated as fodder to increase the profits of the tabloid paper.

The image of Murdoch Snr and his son James being grilled in the House of Commons was welcome as it showed that even in the UK, where freedom of the press is sacrosanct, media governance is essential. And the investigation also serves as a reminder that the media, too, is subject to public scrutiny.

With investigations ongoing, the phone-hacking saga has already claimed many casualties. Former editors have been arrested and two senior policemen have resigned. Murdoch himself has seen share prices for his News Corp empire plunge sharply since the scandal broke, but he has also been forced to abandon his ambition to take full control of British Sky Broadcasting Group.

Murdoch may be forced to review the strategy for his media empire after suffering "the most humble day" of his life. But readers may need to reflect on how their hunger to be entertained has also contributed to the journalistic malpractice they are now outraged over.