Phone-hacking: how low can the News of the World go?

THE phone-hacking saga at the News of the World has now become an outright scandal.

Previously confined to the concerns of celebrities, it is apparent that the tapping tentacles of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, working on behalf of the News International paper, went much further.

Murdered teenager Milly Dowler was one such victim while she was missing, the Guardian reported on Monday.

Others, according to police, who may have been hacked include the parents of murdered 10-year-old schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the father of David Foulkes who died in the 7/7 bombings.

None of these people sought fame or notoriety. Rather, it was foisted upon them by tragic circumstances.

And, even when the phone-hacking related to celebrities, there was a sense of unease. Nevertheless, many journalists argued that these public figures were fair game having courted the media so much themselves.

Now that defence definitely cannot be used and the reputation of journalism as a profession is soiled once again.

Never mind that most local reporters would not dream of doing what the News of the World (and allegedly other nationals) have done.

FleetStreetBlues hoodies, stating 'I'm a hack, not a hacker', might help some of those reporters ride the storm of the next few days but, ultimately, it is the nationals on which journalism is judged.

This has not been a good week for the self-proclaimed Fourth Estate.

These phone-hacking revelations follow on the back of an admission by top Independent columnist Johann Hari that he routinely adds what interviewees have said or written previously, passing them off as quotes from his own interview.

But, while Hari was deservedly pilloried for his astonishing revelation, it could still be laughed off by the profession as a whole - hence these amusing tweets using the hashtag #interviewbyhari.

The difference this time is that the issue primarily concerns the News of the World (circulation of 2.78m), not the Independent (185,000), and it is of course no laughing matter.

Really, this should spell the end of the line for News of the World. It will not be - but, really, there is an argument it should*.

How the newspaper can ever take a moralistic tone on any issue again is quite beyond me.

No doubt it will still fill its pages on Sunday with stories about benefit cheats and drunken louts or teenage mums along with the news of who's screwing behind whose back, of course.

The phone-hacking issue will even be raised in Parliament today in a special Emergency Debate in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister David Cameron will surely repeat his condemnation from earlier this week of the practice of phone-hacking. But even Mr Cameron does not escape this tangled web entirely.

For, in 2007, the then-Leader of the Opposition appointed former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his senior media advisor where he remained in place until his resignation in January this year.

In fairness, Mr Cameron was presumably unaware of how critical the phone-hacking situation would get but Mr Coulson's appointment still showed a serious lack of judgement on the Conservative leader's part.

After all, Mr Coulson had previously resigned from his position on the paper after royal correspondent Clive Goodman was jailed for four months for conspiracy to access voicemail messages left for royal aides.

At the time, Mr Coulson claiming the actions were the work of Goodman alone but this is a defence which subsequently collapsed in court.

Now, having been caught out, Rupert Murdoch's News International group should be forced to come clean altogether.

Though, if indeed they do, it is already difficult to imagine anything other than the News of the World coming out of it smelling like raw sewage.

*EDIT: Well, surprisingly, it has actually happened. This evening, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, has announced that the last edition of the 168-year-old News of the World will be sold on Sunday. 

It is unclear at this stage whether this is simply an attempt to re-brand this part of the News International but clearly the outrage regarding the phone-hacking scandal has had an effect. 

When the advertisers started pulling out in their droves, it did not look good. Circulation among most newspapers is now so low that it is in fact the advertisers which provide the lifeline. 

Nevertheless, the News of the World - or the News of the Screws, as it became known for its salacious celebrity gossip - has been, in journalism parlance, spiked more quickly than I expected. 

Some remain skeptical that this is the end of News International's interest into producing a populist paper on a Sunday. 

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said: "All they're going to do is rebrand it". 

And Lord Prescott, who believes his phone was hacked while he was in government, added: "There's no doubt it will become the Sunday Sun". 

Perhaps, if that is Mr Murdoch's idea, someone should tell him that the Trinity Mirror-owned Newcastle Evening Chronicle group ncj media have already got there first.

Latest tosh from the nationals

HIGHLY-PAID national scribes regularly produce a load of pap to fill the column inches but some bad journalism simply cannot be left without censure.

Indeed, two pieces published in the last few days are so cringeworthy that they merit a blog post.

The first load of rubbish comes, somewhat unsurprisingly, from the Daily Express. On Friday, it published a poll claiming that 99% of British people want to leave the European Union.

In the intro to the article which carries the findings, the Express laughably claims that the survey shows there is "a massive weight of public support surging behind the Daily Express's crusade to liberate Britain from Brussels".

But, as professional YouGov pollster Anthony Wells points out on the excellent UK Polling Report blog, the poll is a nonsense, referred in the industry as a 'voodoo poll'.

Mr Wells wrote: "There is unlikely to be any attempt to properly sample or weight the data, nor protections against multiple voting, nor preventing pressure groups organising people to ring up en masse.

"Yes, in this case it’s blindingly obvious that the poll is bunkum."

Of course, there is nothing unusual in the populist press publishing some sort of article based upon its own telephone poll.

Frankly, people who call up a premium rate number to declare their interest would seem to have too much time on their hands but that is besides the point.

The reason why the story probably provoked so much ire from Mr Wells was not so much the lack of caveats or weighting but the fact that the Express ran the story "in massive font on the front page".

This story was undoubtedly a case of irresponsible journalism, effectively presenting the opinions of Express readers bothered enough to pick up a phone as fact, then - worse - giving it wide exposure. Was there really nothing else to report?

Perhaps the only surprise in the wake of the Royal wedding announcement is that Prince William and Kate Middleton were not mentioned. Or, for that matter, Princess Di.


The other terrible item to turn stomachs and yet make it to the presses this week was written by the Guardian football writer Louise Taylor on Thursday. It came to light in this post on the FleetStreetBlues blog.

Ms Taylor has recently been to Doha in Qatar and, on her return, produced a sickeningly-sweet puff piece about the small Arab state's prospects of winning its bid to host the World Cup 2022.

She even attempts to suggest that Qatar's stance on the existence of Israel would soften in the event of the Israelis qualifying.

And, putting aside my personal distaste as a Newcastle fan towards Ms Taylor as a writer - she honed her dubious skills on Sunderland fanzine A Love Supreme and rarely fails to show her bias on Tyne-Wear matters - this article still stinks.

Sports blog editor Steve Busfield gave what he referred to as "full disclosure" when he explained that Ms Taylor "was on a press trip to Qatar with several other national newspaper and broadcasting journalists, ahead of the decision for the 2022 World Cup next week."

Mr Busfield added: "During the trip Louise wrote news stories about the Brazil v Argentina match and on Alex Ferguson. She was asked to write a comment piece about her impressions of Qatar."

However, when further comments queried who paid for her jaunt to the Middle East, Mr Busfield finally confirmed that "the trip was organised and paid for by the Qatar 2022 World Cup bid committee."

In other words, the original "full disclosure" was in fact the truth but not the whole truth and the whole truth shows a massive conflict of interest.

Oddly enough, the article now seems to have been somewhat buried - certainly, it is no longer visible on the football front-page of the Guardian website.

But this is nothing new for the Guardian which has fallen foul in the past to an expose in the comments box by its own readers.

In 2008, a rather dull travel blog by young Skins writer Max Gogarty was revealed in the readers' comments to have been written by the son of freelance journalist and regular Guardian contributor Paul Gogarty. Nepotism at its best.

The comments were scathing then and it is no different this time with heavy moderating showing the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' policy only applies so far.

Of the opinions which have been allowed through, the best are those which suggest Ms Taylor seeks alternative employment - as an official for the Qatari tourist board.

No doubt she would do a good job, and there would probably be plenty of money in it for her too.

Hat-tips: UK Polling Report, FleetStreetBlues

Raoul Moat and the Rothbury media circus

THE MANHUNT for Raoul Moat gripped the nation this time last week as, with little else to report on, the 24-hour news channels went into overdrive.

Sky News and the BBC News Channel analysed every single emerging aspect of Northumbria Police's attempts to apprehend a man who had killed one and severely injured two others.

The level of coverage has drawn criticism from Martin Robbins on his blog post, titled Seven Questions for the Media.

In response, the excellent FleetStreetBlues blog has provided answers to each point, concluding that "the implication that journalists were too intrusive, too inquisitive and too obstructive to police is just inaccurate".

Personally, I thought the level of coverage was largely acceptable. This was a major news story - it involved one-tenth of the total police force in England and an RAF Tornado.

The nature of the manhunt, with details of locations, vehicles and letters, slowly seeping out, also suited a 24-hour news platform.

The climax to the case was utterly compelling viewing, and even though the ending was somewhat unedifying, it was also predictable.

However, my issue with the media on this case is not that the coverage was there but how it was conducted. Many of my gripes relate to the age-old problem of inaccuracy.

As a north east lad, I suppose I am at an advantage in that I know how to pronounce Ponteland (not 'Pontyland'), where Northumbria Police has its HQ. Or Seaton Delaval (not 'Seaton De-la-val'), where Moat allegedly held up a fish and chip shop.

Additionally, news presenters and reporters will presumably now be aware that the 'o' in Rothbury is pronounced like the one in hot, and not as in go.

These mispronunciations may seem a little persnickety on my part but place names are absolute basics of reporting and the continued errors were rather embarrassing.

Surely it was not too much to ask somebody local if they were getting the name of their town right.

Unfortunately, the inaccuracy did not just end with reporters getting a little tongue-tied and the geography of north east England was pulled apart at its seams.

At one stage, the BBC News Channel reported that Wrekenton was part of Newcastle even though it is south of Gateshead. The same channel also moved the border of North Tyneside so that it included the A1/A69 roundabout where PC David Rathband was shot.

Sky were no better, highlighting Birtley on a map as being to the west of Newcastle when again it is to the south of Gateshead, near Chester-le-Street.

But the big individual prize for inaccurate reporting goes to Sky's Kay Burley.

Burley repeatedly told us she was in Rothbury, "25 miles to the north east of Newcastle upon Tyne", even though that location would mean she was standing in the middle of the North Sea.

For the record, Rothbury is north-north-west of Newcastle. Again, the media fell foul of some fundamental inaccuracies - was it really too much work to ask?

Of course, Burley is not a particularly well-liked figure, her reputation having suffered further after the General Election when she was embroiled in an unseemly spat with an interviewee protesting in favour of proportional representation.

Burley was cleared this week by Ofcom of having breached impartiality rules but she provided plenty of ammunition for her detractors from her spell in Rothbury.

She veered from the completely inane - "If Moat is on the move, he could be absolutely anywhere, couldn't he?" - to the overly-dramatic, asking one resident, "Have you got enough food in to just sit this out? It could take hours."

Worst of all, as matters came to a head last Friday, she cut to an advertisement break with an unforgivably tactless line. "It's tense, it's dramatic, and it's live here on Sky" - it was as if she were introducing a top-of-the-table Premier League clash.

Little wonder that the satirical online newspaper The Daily Mash felt quite comfortable suggesting Burley should be taken down by taken down by armed police.

Elements of the media clearly attempted to create their own narrative, causing some harassment to the residents of Rothbury - probably more than the situation itself.

A low-point was reached by the BBC on Friday evening shortly after news broke of Moat having been located near the river in Rothbury and a police cordon was set up.

The cordon caused one woman, Paula, to become rather distressed as her elderly mother was effectively trapped inside her house.

She willingly gave a short, emotional interview but, as he broke off to speak to her mother on her mobile phone, the interviewer asked her to put the call on Speakerphone before taking the phone off her and doing it himself.

Attempts to script a narrative about anxiety among the Rothbury people had gone on all week but Paula's reaction was an exception.

As events between Moat and the police came to a head on Friday, the broadcasters ramped up the fear factor once more. One such exchange on Sky:
Interviewer: "This must be quite surreal for you."
Resident: "Yes", followed by a long pause.
Interviewer: "Are you frightened?"
Resident: "No, there's plenty of police about."

There was a similar interview on the radio with a resident whose house has been used by police to gain access to the area where the stand-off with Moat happened:
Interviewer: "So they screamed at you to go back in?"
Woman: "No, they just asked quite normally."
Interviewer: "And they (the police) rushed through your house?"
Woman: "No, they walked through very carefully."

The story was surely dramatic enough without the media needing to put words in the mouths of Rothbury residents.

At least the media adhered properly to the blackouts requested by the police on matters such as the hostage situation in the opening days - for that, they deserve credit.

Reporters were also right to ask questions of the police about their lack of response to the warning from Durham Prison, the length of time over which the investigation took place, and the use of Taser guns.

These were legitimate enquiries and it would be a strange world if journalists were not seeking answers to them, even though it is likely they will have to wait for the reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Until then, idle speculation and misguided commentaries are likely to be the order of the coming weeks, the worst of which makes Moat out to be the victim in this saga.

Several sick Facebook groups have already sprung up with thousands of members, many ready to acclaim Moat as some kind of anti-hero. Particular credit is given to Moat for his maiming of a police officer for life.

Moat's attention-seeking 'woe is me' attitude was evident in his 49-page letter and, at times, the media encouraged the idea that he was a victim of society.

Unfortunately, the brain-dead idiots of this world have picked up on this and made him a martyr with flowers left at the Rothbury riverside and outside his front door in the west of Newcastle.

Of course, some of the cretinous oxygen-wasters would have supported him anyway but the media must take some of the blame for him becoming such a cause célèbre in death.

Moat was a violent man, and a killer, for whom no sympathy should be reserved. He may have defied the police for over a week but he failed to terrorise the residents of Rothbury.

These are the only current known facts of this depressing (though fascinating) case - and they are enough of a story without the need for additional narratives.

The power of people

The generosity of some people never ceases to amaze me sometimes.

After my lament on the closure of Press Gazette was noticed by the excellent FleetStreetBlues blog, one of its readers (presumably), calling themselves Outraged, suggested I tried the nearby Camden New Journal to fill the gap.

With my transport and accommodation still booked and nothing to lose, it was worth a shot.

And after a brief exchange of emails this afternoon, my application for the w/c May 18th was successful.

So this is just a short post to say thanks to FleetStreetBlues and 'Outraged'.

While I often despair about the state of the industry as a whole, it's clear that the vast majority of the people working in it are like gold and are always willing to help out a fellow hack.