One of the tragedies of the current News of the World scandal (which, for once, seems too mild a word) is the law of unintended consequences.
I have argued many times on this blog for outside regulation of the media – particularly the printed press. Repeated intrusion, misrepresentation and other infringements seemed to stem from a sense of unaccountability and invincibility on the part of some journalists and editors. I have questioned the professional self-respect of some journalists in relation to what they refer to as their ‘craft’. I have failed to understand why the press can demand external regulation for (for example) MPs – who surely cannot be trusted to behave ethically in respect of their expenses – while demanding that they be privileged with internal regulation. So, now we have Rebekkah Brookes & Co. maintaining without a hint of irony that they should be treated differently and be allowed to investigate themselves for ethical failures. Let’s have a minute’s silence to think about that withour either laughing or weeping.
In discussion of these themes I have always listened to the argument of certain journalists who have argued for (a) the need for a free press and (b) the importance for a mature democracy of an independent scrutinising press. I fully agree with both counts.
But, the arguments for self-regulation have been rubbished by journalists themselves. The need for external regulation, an enforcable ethical code and proper redress for ‘victims’ of infringement hardly needs to be argued in the light of this week’s revelations. Maybe, just maybe, the tide has turned and popular tolerance of newspaper scandal has been dimmed.
And the law of unintended consequences? First, we need a free press which takes seriously the vocation to hold power to account and identify (and pursue) the questions most of us don’t think about). Second, all journalists get tarred with the same brush – even if most would rather drink poison than sacrifice their self-respect by working for a paper like the News of the World – and that damages the reputation, standing and professionalism of those who deserve better. (And, before anyone whinges that such tarring is unfair, just look what happens when one dodgy vicar gets the rest of us slagged off as pervy, too.)
Somehow in all this mess we have to protect (or define and promote) the independence and freedom of the press – and affirm their responsibility to play their part in shaping our society. This means journalists dropping the fantasy that they only report or observe; they are players in the game. Maybe the best start to this would be for journalists themselves to take responsibility for establishing the best in journalism and telling the rest of us what standard they are working to.
Because, when all is said and done, journalism is discovering this week what the rest of us have experienced for ever: that those who hold others to account must, themselves, be held to account not only for what they write, but how they write it.
I’m not sure how, but we now need a campaign for good journalism and the promotion of good journalists.
Nick Baines's Blog 
July 7, 2011 at 9:35 am
I also thank that pert of the problem is that ‘journalism’ now encompasses writing rubbish about talent-less ‘celebs’. And the arms race to get more and more salacious content has led these journos to push the boundaries to a wholly unacceptable level. Whilst I really couldn’t give a monkey’s about Katie Price, Cheryl Cole, et al you could argue that they’re fair game because they court the media and need to be in the papers to sustain their ‘careers’.
It is when these same tactics are applied to people who have not asked to be scrutinised that the issues occur. Again, some deserve it. I’m all for intruding into the private life of MPs who defrauded the tax payer over their expenses, but not the majority of MPs and other public servants who are doing no wrong and are doing the best that they can.
The most shocking examples of the NOTW hacking is where it was used against people who are thrust into the public’s consciousness simply through a horrible bit of bad luck (the Dowlers, the 7/7 victims, etc.). There can be no public good in prying into the private affairs of any of these people.
Hopefully the British pubic will start to realise what a monster they have created and start to reject the comics (NOTW, The Mail, The Sun, etc, etc) who have got information illegally and who serve no useful purpose.
July 7, 2011 at 9:40 am
….. and of course my previous comment should have started “I also think that part of the problem…” Bit of a Stanley Unwin moment.
July 7, 2011 at 9:42 am
Nick wrote: Second, all journalists get tarred with the same brush – even if most would rather drink poison than sacrifice their self-respect by working for a paper like the News of the World.
But far too many journalists, who work for the ‘quality papers’ or who now are pundits on the radio and TV have come up through the ranks which includes working for the News of the World. They would have to include themselves. And that’s before we’ve started talking about Andy Coulson and those who hobnob with government ministers.
July 7, 2011 at 10:21 am
As the wife of a local councillor I have had to endure several years of my hard working, dedicated hubby, who genuinely cares about representing his community, being called a greedy, lying, thieving two faced unprincipled charlatan who is only interested in lining his pocket – without any way of defending him for fear of upsetting those who might elect him – all thanks to ‘journalists”. Schadenfreude is not a very Christian emotion but allow me a moment to enjoy it.
July 7, 2011 at 12:19 pm
It seems to me that much of the Media, printed or broadcast live in a different dimension from the rest of us. In their world, they know that they have the power to make and break lives, companies, and even nations if they can get the inside information – and the NOTW demonstrates the levels that they can and will go to to get the information they need to do their job.
The old saying ‘by hook or by crook’ seems quite apt here.
In their dimension anything is fair, anything goes and nobody is going to worry about how they got their story, and even if someone complains, the PCC will adminster a slap on the wrist and ask them to print or broadcast a tiny retraction and apology, buried deep in an inside page.
I’m don’t favour punitive legislation or censorship. I do favour a legally enforceable Code of Practice, which if breached brings automatic criminal or civil sanctions, which hit them where it hurts – in their pocket. It seems to me that greed drives this sort of activity, therefore taking away the rewards of their misdeeds seem appropriate. The right to automatic, huge compensation for those defamed or libeled should be implicit in this.
Off course, the actions which are illegal must be investigated and prosecuted. Existing law covers that pretty much, although I believe that their pursuit of individuals and intrusions into peoples private lives deserves to be included in the harassment law currently on the statute book. Where criminal activity is known to their employers and condoned, then the employers criminal collusion deserves to be punished similarly. Seeing Rupert Murdoch at the bar in the Old Bailey might just remind them that they are not exempt or bomb proof.
I just wonder if, despite their fine words, the current or future governments have the political appetite or guts to bring the media to heel.
July 7, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You’ve got my vote of agreement, Nick. Appreciate the way you’ve articulated it here as well.
D.
July 7, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Hurrah! the News of the World is closed as from Sunday! (good start eh?)
loved your blog on the moderation of the rhetorics of moderation, timely as ever, keep up the good work! (think I deserve a Phd for wading through that lot, you are an incredibly good writer)
July 7, 2011 at 6:16 pm
ps to twatmough – happened to see a v.good article by Evan Davis on the UK economy in July 1st ‘Sun’ – it’s a pity not more of the good ‘uns write stuff for the bad ‘uns!
July 7, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Well, now we know. It is the ‘end of the road’ for the News of the World and in particular for hundreds of their employees’ (presumably most of them ‘good’ if some bad) but significantly not for their Chief Executive. Have I missed something or is this yet one more cynical move to protect ‘family’ while sacrifycing the rest. And it was about to start losing lots of money anyway so no great loss to the ’empire’.
July 7, 2011 at 10:58 pm
This is a complex and fast moving story. I am desperately sorry for the ordinary folk who will lose their jobs through no fault of their own. I also lay much blame on our wider society and particularly those who bought the paper ( not me – I hardly patronise “Fleet Street” at all). The only difference between hacking a celebrity phone and a victim’s phone is not law but taste and the buying public are ultimately responsible for that public taste.
I reluctantly agree with you that we need a new political/journalistic settlement. Let’s remember that all politicians sup with a variety of devils. David Cameron and Gordon Brown both attended Rebecca Brooks wedding, and Ed Milliband was drinking Krystal champagne at Rupert Murdoch’s birthday bash only two weeks ago – when the phone hacking story was not exactly unknown. I wonder if the outraged political class will protest the degraded standards of the media by refusing to sell their memoirs’ serialisation rights?!
Perhaps we need a “Truth and Reconciliation” type commission to get to the facts without the delay and complication of trials and recrimination. Let’s let the insiders tell us the truth without fear and then we can deal with the consequent re-structuring in a more informed way. Revenge will largely be politically motivated and cause huge expense and delay. A better “solution” may be less satisfying for those who want to pay back political scores but when we are considering tampering with the free press ( which has in many ways served us well ( even the NOTW) maybe we have to be bigger than taking the temporary satisfactions of casting the first stone.
Before we allow people to become too moralising, let’s recall that if Martin McGuiness is a fit and proper person to be part of the Government of Northern Ireland Rupert Murdoch may be no less fit and proper for some future ownership of media. Scandal though it be, nobody died.
I would include the BBC in such a Commission. I know you have long held honest criticism of Murdoch. I have similar irritations with the BBC over its clear cultural metro -centric liberal bias. The difference is that you can read another newspaper without fear of being locked up if you don’t buy the Sun!
My own nominee for Chair would be the redoubtable Bob Marshal Andrews QC a maverick but nobodies fool or placeman.
I think our media is problematic on a number of levels – and the Church has much to contribute to the debate. I hope Rowan Williams will add his views though he must not sound like a well educated John Prescott when he does. He must be balanced and thoughtful. It will be an important and valuable contribution I hope he is well advised and goes for the underlying malaise in our public life. Others can do the obvious.
Finally, the habits of an old defence lawyer die hard. There are two things to be said for the Murdoch Empire. 1 His willingness to break the technological stranglehold of the old Fleet Street Unions saved many of our national papers – not just his own. He was assisted by the late Eric Hammond an old Union/Labour man who understood the new world ( A nice man who I knew slightly). 2 Murdoch was the driving force behind the cabling up of the country for cable television. Of course he did it for his own reasons but it had the hugely important consequence that the UK quickly took to the internet and this has helped our economy considerably. Every life has pluses and minuses.