NOTW to close

[Kowalski]

yep just reading about this on the Guardian

including "Details from his infant son's medical records were obtained by the Sun"

made me laugh when Jon Gaunt (on Question Time) remained stoically behind the Sun, saying it was a great paper (with Hugh Grant rolling his eyes)

[eFestivals]

and it wouldn't be without logic to assume that the NOTW is not alone in all of this.

It's really only been the Guardian, and occasionally the Indie, who have been pursuing this story - and then the TV news has been giving the story publicity. The others are trying to report as little of it as possible.

For example, the day after the 'millie dowler' story broke, not one tabloid covered it on its front page. And Sun readers must have been really confused when there was suddenly a headline about NoTW closing. After all, they'd heard almost no word of a scandal.

And the fact that NoTW was habitually hacking the phones for 'standard' stories - such as the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan - has got to strongly suggest that every other newspaper was doing much the same. I can't see how they weren't, given how most of the staff work at most of the titles at some point during their careers.

The all sorts of aspects to this story which would in a smarter world see this story run and run and run some more. But much like with MPs expenses they'll get bored soon enough and it'll all be forgotten. After all, if any of this meant very much then the The Sun and The Times' readership would be zero already.

[Kowalski]

This graph appeared in the New Statesman:

[Wooderson]

This could bring down your government chaps.

I'm gonna throw on "All The President's Men" again tonight for the craic.

[eFestivals]

This could bring down your government chaps.

I'm gonna throw on "All The President's Men" again tonight for the craic.

It could bring down the govt in the same way that the 'MPs expenses scandal' could have brought down the govt.

Whatever the details turn out to be, it only has legs as a story while the public are interested in it - and I suspect that interest is already wearing thin.

After all, if enough of us were 'upright citizens' enough to force the issue to a govt's resignation we'd not have been buying the crap printed by NI in the first place. So none of this would ever have happened.

But am amused that 3 majorly bad things which are the direct consequence of Thatcherism have all come home to roost in quick succession - the banking crisis, MP's expenses, and now corruption of and by the press involving the Prime Minister plus the Met Police. And not only have they come home to roost, people still love to vote - or act - tory. You couldn't make it up!

[lost]

NOTW sold 4.5 million yesterday apparently.. Every copy printed so I suppose could of sold more

Edited July 11, 2011 by lost

[Kowalski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgIBVYQQ-Q

[eFestivals]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgIBVYQQ-Q

I saw that happen live yesterday.

[The Nal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgIBVYQQ-Q

[jump]

obviously...

some people were even buying it thinking it'll be worth some money

[The Nal]

Jon Stewart

Edited July 12, 2011 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Sorry, but the mock horror/indignation just perpetuates the real awfulness of the story......

... yep, a story so awful that the paper most involved sold twice its normal number on Sunday, while sales of The Sun don't fall, sales of the Times don't fall, and people happily renew their Sky subscriptions.

The country is clearly outraged.

Edited July 13, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

if there was some proper monitoring of the press, and laws relating to privacy were upheld, then the stories would have nowhere to go

the whole ambiguity over who is a supposed legitimate 'target' ... celebs, murder victims, footballers etc etc... baffles me

but then if there weren't people interested in this crap, then there wouldn't be anywhere for the stories to go either

Hmmmm ... if the laws on privacy were properly upheld, we'd have no press to speak of.

For example, I've seen on TV the last few days pictures of Murdoch leaving his London home in a car to go to work. Yet how do those reporters get to know where Murdoch lives? Someone somewhere *MUST* have broken a confidence to pass that information onto the press.

Another example: today The Sun have refuted Brown's claims that they somehow accessed his son's medical records. Their refuting consists of a video of a guy who was apparently the source of the info, but where that guy's identity remains hidden. While I'm in no way suggesting this was a valid story for the press to run, it's still the case that their refuting consists of them displaying a guy who has clearly broken a confidence in some manner, and might have broken medical ethical rules - and so is no less dodgy than if they had accessed the medical records.

And another: the MP expenses 'scandal' came about because The Telegraph paid someone to pass to them confidential details of MPs expenses claims - a clear breech of privacy laws, but one that few people would condemn.

Personally I'd say that our privacy rules as they stand are about right. If a paper over-steps the rules (as it certainly did with Brown's son) then there's a system where a complaint can be made and that paper can be disciplined for that breech; in other cases (such as with MPs expenses), a 'public interest' defence can be justifiably made. And everything is reviewable within the courts.

While I say the rules are about right, where they fall down is with the redress given to those who are victims of the press going too far, and the financial punishment given to those who go too far. As things stand it's always worth it to a paper to publish because the sanctions back on them are too weak.

As for "the whole ambiguity over who is a supposed legitimate 'target'", that ultimately comes down to what people want to read about and not the press leading those people to read about those things. If you buy into scumbags then you become one of those scumbags.

Me, I'm sat here able to take the moral high ground .... for 30 years I've not been giving Murdoch my money, because I've always seen him and his for what they are, for what they're now proven as being.

[eFestivals]

in the end, why does the 'how information' is obtained become more important than what is actually being said?

precisely - which is why I don't think that any change in privacy laws is necessary, because it would end up with the public losing valid stories.

What is necessary is that the existing privacy laws are adhered to, and that pro-active efforts are being made by the regulator of the press (be that the PCC or a replacement) to check on what the press is actually doing.

I can't for the life of me understand why the old bill have taken a criminal's word for whether they've broken the law or not - it's not like they work the law that way for Joe Public. "Mr Burglar, have you been burgling?" "No officer". "Oh OK. Off you go then". If that was happening with 'normal' crimes then they'd be complete outrage - yet for some reason it seems that people are acce3pting this as a reasonable way for the old bill to work things with the press.

[eFestivals]

lines (moral and/or legal) are crossed all the time. Why wasn't it questioned at the time whether; a ) It was right that the info about Brown's kid should have been front page news, and b ) where did the information come from... ?

Yep very true. Tho it seems to be the case that Brown felt unable to make a fuss about it at the time because of a fear of comeback from the Murdoch press. The way that politicians of all parties now feel able to condemn them when a week ago they'd have shied away from it seems to bear this out.

But the police still don't seem to get it. They've uncovered habitual law breaking by members of the press, yet haven't joined up the dots enough to recognise that those same members of the press won't have been doing anything differently when they moved on to work for other titles - and given that just about no one from Coulson's time at NoTW was still working at NoTW when it shut, that's extremely relevant.

All it would take would be to get those other papers to reveal which private investigators were on their payrolls, and for those investigators to be raided - so why isn't it happening? There's more than enough reasonable suspicion compared to how the police police pursue suspicion for other matters for them to be doing this, yet they're not.

The fact that the whole country is in a state of moral outrage now, is bewildering

Nah, that's not bewildering, that this country's standard Daily Mail-ism. The country has long been able to work itself up into a state over any old bollocks, no matter how complicit those people are in the whole thing.

It was just the same with MPs expenses, where the MPs were condemned as thieves while at the same time those same people were saying "if it was available to me then I'd be taking it too".

[Snufflebutt]

I'm really finding it difficult to drum up any sort of sympathy for Brown. His government had been courting the Murdoch press for years. If he'd spent half as much time trying to, at the very least, make sure the laws against phone hacking were implemented as he did having dinner with News International board members then he might not have had his phone hacked. He is the person who had the most power to do something about phone hacking, unlike Milly Dowler's family or even High Grant. I don't doubt it was personally upsetting for him, but I don't think we should all hug him to our collective bosom.

[eFestivals]

I'm really finding it difficult to drum up any sort of sympathy for Brown. His government had been courting the Murdoch press for years. If he'd spent half as much time trying to, at the very least, make sure the laws against phone hacking were implemented as he did having dinner with News International board members then he might not have had his phone hacked. He is the person who had the most power to do something about phone hacking, unlike Milly Dowler's family or even High Grant. I don't doubt it was personally upsetting for him, but I don't think we should all hug him to our collective bosom.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't see things as quite as simple as that.

The simple fact is that long before Brown was PM - in fact long before Labour were in power - the power of the Murdoch press had become too powerful for politicians to challenge, or at least, that was how politicians of all sides had come to see it.

You only have to look at how Vince Cable was moved from the BSkyB sale review for suggesting that he'd deal with things properly, alongside Cameron's initial fear of condemning them for the phone hacking, plus his recruitment of Coulson, to see how that idea (whether it's true or false) had infected politicians. That turn around by Cameron shows just how deeply it was ingrained.

Why does anyone think that Murdoch is holding onto Brookes when sacking her would resolve a lot of issues for NI? It's f**k all to do with any innocence of her in all this, and everything to do with her being Murdoch's 'in' to the centre of govt power. She's Dave Moron's horse-riding buddy - and that's the only reason that even now he's gone no further than saying that NI should have accepted her offer to resign. He's not gone as far as saying that she should resign.

As for Hugh Grant, his involvement makes me more than a tad uncomfortable. Because, knowing what I know (I'm not going into details, aside from saying that him and Liz H were never ever a couple), he's one of the worst abusers of the press himself.

[eFestivals]

So Murdoch has now withdrawn his bid for BSkyB - interestingly enough, just shortly before the bid was due to be discussed about in Parliament, exactly as he did last week when Hunt was due to make an announcement about whether the bid would be waved thru or not. But Murdoch's not trying to manipulate things, oh no.

And yet... if Parliament was about to declare that his bid should be withdrawn (as had been widely reported was going to happen), then it remains the case that Murdoch's ownership of a controlling 39% stake in Sky is no less suitable for Murdoch to own than it would be for him to own it all.

When are the politicians going to wake up to this and act on it?

And similarly, if he's not fit to run TV broadcaster, then he's not fit to own newspapers - particularly when his ownership of the Time & Sunday Times is only legally allowed on the basis of him having "no editorial interference" (a pledge he was required to make to take ownership of it in the early eighties), yet that condition isn't stuck to - there's countless examples which can prove that's the case (such as the lack of reporting of this very scandal within those papers).

Do you really have any balls, you politicians, or are you talking yet more worthless bollocks? Sort it out!

[eFestivals]

given up on Sky now...

he must be gutted

Only mildly gutted I reckon. I reckon the plan is to create a situation where it gets simply waived thru when he makes the next bid. It's far easier if no legal obstacles have ever been put in the way of a bid, as is the situation as it stands.

After all, if he were to sell his newspapers (which I expect him to do), as things stand legally there's very little the govt can do to block a later bid.

[eFestivals]

if Hugh Grant, or anyone, uses the press for their own purposes, does that then give the press the right to do whatever they like to him (or anyone)?

I don't think it should

I don't think to should either.

But it also shouldn't be the case that someone is able to present themselves as taking the moral high ground when their own actions within the press have been no less dishonest than the things they're condemning the press for.

The only reason it's Hugh Grant leading this charge against Murdoch and not anyone else (such as politicians) is because those politicians are no less compromised than Murdoch himself is, and they're still keeping one eye on Murdoch's rise back to where he was just a few weeks ago. No balls!

[eFestivals]

i think it will be a good few years before he could realistically have another go for Sky... the enquiries will have to be over, and gawd knows how long that might take

BskyB is the highest earner he has (I think)..

I reckon he's gutted

but he's not exactly going to be homeless, is he

As soon as he's ditched the newspapers, there's very little that can be done legally to stop him taking over. He wouldn't have to wait for the newspaper stuff to be sorted, because the newspapers would be nothing to do with him then. The only reason his current bid has been up for the possibly of legal review is down to the fact that he currently owns those newspapers - competition laws say that one person can't own too much of the media.

The only thing which could stop him taking full ownership would be if they ruled him "not a fit person" to own it - and given that there's no such enquiry going on at this moment over the 39% he currently owns which gives him full control of Sky, then they're not going to launch that same enquiry over his total ownership. There's an identical legal basis for seeing if he's a fit and proper person whether he owns 1% or 100%.

Yep, BSkyB would certainly be News Corps biggest earner from the UK if he owned it all - and given that Sky profits are growing significantly while his UK newspaper profits are falling, it doesn't take a genius to work out why he wants full ownership.

He ain't that gutted. He clearly feels he can still bounce back, otherwise he'd have ditched Brookes. He clearly sees her as his way back in - not as surprise given how she's Dave Moron's neighbour and his regular horse-riding companion.

[Snufflebutt]

And similarly, if he's not fit to run TV broadcaster, then he's not fit to own newspapers - particularly when his ownership of the Time & Sunday Times is only legally allowed on the basis of him having "no editorial interference" (a pledge he was required to make to take ownership of it in the early eighties), yet that condition isn't stuck to - there's countless examples which can prove that's the case (such as the lack of reporting of this very scandal within those papers).

Do you really have any balls, you politicians, or are you talking yet more worthless bollocks? Sort it out!

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure the bit in bold is necessarily true. I read the Times and theres been some days when they've given over the first 7 or 8 pages to the phone hacking scandal - complete with repeatedly stating that the 4 (now 3) big newspapers owned by NI are editorially seperate.... I dunno about the other newspapers but I'd compare the Times coverage of phone hacking to the way the BBC covered the Dr David Kelly/ Iraq inquiry business - rather good reporting about itself. I'd be amazed if there was no link between the NI board and the editorial opinion, its always moaning about the BBC.

While The Times might have given this NoTW scandal significantly more coverage than The Sun, it's still way way down on what the likes of the Guardian, Indie & Telegraph have published - and that in itself says something.

But there's a huge amount of other things which could be dragged out to support the idea of editorial interference by Murdoch - such as the constant omission of stories that paint NI/NC in a bad light.

While there's something like an 'editorial board' (I can't remember what it's called exactly) which The Times had to set-up when Murdoch bought it as a way to demonstrate that he wouldn't be interfering with its editorial standards, Private Eye has documented how its failed to do what it's there for on countless occasions, and has on occasions demonstrated pretty solidly how Murdoch has interfered when he shouldn't.

So it's proven that assurances from Murdoch are worthless, so there's no way that similar assurances should be accepted over him buying Sky - yet all the same, the Tories were going to accept them until Murdoch tripped himself up.

Ultimately, we're in the exact same place as we were over the MPs expenses thing - that all of those involved have shown themselves as unfit for public office, and they should be banned from public office. They're acting purely in their own interests and not at all in the interests of the country.

[Purple Monkey]

Ultimately it proves democracy is an absolute farce and a lie, and always was.

[nightcrawler13]

News Corp dropped bid for BSkyB