|
Post by jockanese on Jul 5, 2011 14:06:15 GMT 1
In some countries newspapers which arouse the ire of the government are shut down.
Given the conduct of the News of the World in terms of phone hacking - in particular the Millie Dowling case - is there not a case for shutting in down for going far beyond the boundaries of public decency?
Or are governments too much in hock to businesses such as News International to make such a stand?
|
|
|
Post by ianh on Jul 5, 2011 18:55:39 GMT 1
In some countries newspapers which arouse the ire of the government are shut down. Given the conduct of the News of the World in terms of phone hacking - in particular the Millie Dowling case - is there not a case for shutting in down for going far beyond the boundaries of public decency? Or are governments too much in hock to businesses such as News International to make such a stand? Hi Jock (I only know you're a Scot because I've been tapping your phone), Take your points in order (unlike me). 1) In some countries newspapers are shut down because they disagree with the government - I get the impression you were a journalist so I'm sure I know what you think about that. 2) What the NOW did in this case (allegedly) is completely reprehensible. Not only is phone hacking illegal in the UK, (and I can understand why a journalist might want phone calls from, perhaps, a corrupt politician or sportsman) but is totally morally bankrupt. By deleting calls from Millie's in box, they gave the impression to her parents she was still alive, and also destroyed possibly vital evidence as well as giving the police the impression that she was still using her phone. But, I don't think they should be shut down - that's a precedent that has no end. I do think, however, that the law should be applied, that an example should be set, and that the editor (Rebecca Wade, as was) is ultimately responsible. I've worked on papers, and some of the stuff they used could only have been got by illegal means (i.e. hacking - no secret sources or a spokesman here), and those questions must have been asked, if only by the lawyers who climb over the NOW sucking up money. Very senior people knew what was happening - and is Rupert Murdoch really that hands off? I doubt it. And, unfortunately, I do think the UK (and others) government is "in hock" to, or at least so dependent on, the press. That's a direct result of having a press that can say what it wants. (Or is the press in hock to its advertisers?) If, however, a senior politician was , for example, revealing defence secrets to the Chinese and was caught by someone hacking into his phone - would we care about the means?
|
|
|
Post by ianh on Jul 5, 2011 22:03:58 GMT 1
I also wonder if they are still stupid enough to be doing it ten years on
|
|
|
Post by lib on Jul 5, 2011 22:49:39 GMT 1
Just as an aside, IanH, Ford announced that it was removing all advertising fromNoW, possibly more companys to follow.
|
|
|
Post by troll on Jul 6, 2011 5:59:40 GMT 1
Just as an aside, IanH, Ford announced that it was removing all advertising fromNoW, possibly more companys to follow. Sorry to be cynical, but I think that is superb publicity/advertising for them. If "outraged of Surbiton" et al boycott the NOW, no one will see the ads!
|
|
|
Post by lib on Jul 6, 2011 7:15:48 GMT 1
Yep, Troll that is a valid point of view.
I always am wary of what 'big' business do, very rarely is it altruistic.
I am also always aware that 'guilt by association' is powerful, even if wrongly attributed, in the the public mind.
Please do not allow me to get on my 'high horse' and ask you my ever fully unanswered question.
"How does a perfectly outwardly normal person, who treats their Family, friends and acquaintances with kindness and regard, go to work and make decisions that adversely affect many other persons just for success, money, and 'looking after the shareholders interest'.
Never fully answered in my own mind, was my reason for leaving a large multi-national and resolve never to work other than self employed.
PS Sorry of topic again, my I say that in I firmly believe that it takes two to make a deal.
So if there are 'bent or even a bit curved' journalists etc there also has to be a market for them to flourish, purchasers of these papers give them legitimacy. The aphorism 'Nobody ever went broke under estimating Public Taste' is so very, very, true.
The first statement arousing the ire of the Government is not fully relevant here, all Governments do not have genuine 'ire'. They have a huge feeling for self protection and therefore will posture and react in response to Public Opinion or perceived attacks on their power. This response is and always will be purely selfish however it appears or in what words it is couched.
pps, also never known in what order to rate, Journalists, Politicians, Used Car Salesmen, Estate Agents, either.
|
|
|
Post by troll on Jul 6, 2011 7:31:45 GMT 1
Please do not allow me to get on my 'high horse' and ask you my ever fully unanswered question. "How does a perfectly outwardly normal person, who treats their Family, friends and acquaintances with kindness and regard, go to work and make decisions that adversely affect many other persons just for success, money, and 'looking after the shareholders interest'. Never fully answered in my own mind, was my reason for leaving a large multi-national and resolve never to work other than self employed. I think its quite common for people to separate their professional and private personae. Power is a formidable drug. I'm sure many of us have known ruthless colleagues, who are genuinely caring and considerate "at home".
|
|
|
Post by lib on Jul 6, 2011 7:34:53 GMT 1
Separation to that degree is bordering on a state of mental illness?
|
|
|
Post by troll on Jul 6, 2011 7:37:11 GMT 1
Separation to that degree is bordering on a state of mental illness? Yes, but probably the only way that Humans with a conscience can function.
|
|
|
Post by lib on Jul 6, 2011 7:39:28 GMT 1
Hmmmm
|
|