tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/murdoch-media-crisis-915/articles
Murdoch media crisis – The Conversation
2014-06-24T16:03:58Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/28354
2014-06-24T16:03:58Z
2014-06-24T16:03:58Z
Hacking trial was just round one in the fight to rescue journalism
<p>This is a defining moment for British journalism. Not because of the phone hacking verdicts, which frankly told us little more than the trial had already revealed. </p>
<p>In October 2013, three senior News of the World news editors – Neville Thurlbeck, Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup – <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/30/phone-hacking-trial-news-of-world-staff">pleaded guilty to phone hacking</a>. </p>
<p>Then we heard that the voicemails of Prince William, Prince Harry and Kate Middleton were <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/14/uk-britain-hacking-idUKKBN0DU18120140514">hacked nearly 200 times</a> in 2005/6. We heard about News International’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/rebekah-brooks-news-international-emails">email deletion policy</a> in 2010, which resulted in the destruction of 3.5m pre-2005 emails – and prompted the judge to <a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/hacking-trial/consider-how-news-international-execs-behaved-after-goodmans-arrest-jury-told/">observe</a> that, if was part of a cover-up, “it may not be the most successful damage limitation exercise ever mounted”. </p>
<p>And we knew back in 2003 that News of the World editors had paid police officers “in the past” because Rebekah Wade, as she then was, used those very words in front of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U">parliamentary select committee</a> – even though parliamentary rules, astonishingly, prevented that admission being used in court.</p>
<p>So the verdict on Andy Coulson really tells us little, except that the criminality went higher within News International than had ever been admitted. And yet, I am prepared to bet my dog-eared copy of the Leveson Report that both the verdicts and the trial itself will be treated by the blinkered, screeching anti-Leveson lobby as conclusive evidence that nothing more need be done. </p>
<h2>Smokescreen</h2>
<p>There will be blustering sermons from self-serving newspaper editors declaring that lessons have been learned, police incompetence fully exposed, and the few miscreants involved will be deservedly punished – now we can, and should, move on. </p>
<p>Then will come the predictable punchline: thankfully, we will be saved from any further repetition of such scandalous behaviour by our shiny new system of self-regulation, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/28/press-regulator-ipso-board-ros-altmann-charles-wilson">IPSO</a>).</p>
<p>But as we read these sanctimonious rationalisations from the nation’s leader writers and columnists, we need to remember two very important lessons from the past three years. </p>
<p>First, we now know that there was a long history of vehement denials, systematic cover-ups, and shameless attempts to discredit the Guardian’s search for the truth. These were followed by sob stories from those same newspapers about journalists being arrested at six in the morning. They had clearly forgotten that this is what happens when the police finally do their job and are concerned about suspects concealing evidence if given advance notice of their arrest. </p>
<p>Second, and much more importantly, criminal activity was not even half the story of wrongdoing. The Leveson Inquiry detailed a morass of vile, intrusive, profoundly unethical, sometimes downright vicious, but non-criminal press behaviour. A coach and several horses were driven through the industry’s own code of conduct, and the industry did virtually nothing about it. </p>
<p>Anyone who really believes the press has already changed its ways should read the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/20/mail-children-protection-media-intrusion-my-campaign">recent article by Paul Weller’s partner Hannah</a>, who wrote movingly about the distress and fear inflicted on her children by a Daily Mail photographer and the subsequent battle to obtain redress from Associated Newspapers. </p>
<p>None of that will change with the verdicts announced. IPSO is as toothless and as manipulated by the industry it purports to regulate as its useless predecessor. </p>
<h2>You can trust us</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, in a piece of brazen deceit, IPSO is being trailed by its promoters as the “toughest regulator in the Western world” which delivers “all of the key elements” of Leveson’s recommendations. </p>
<p>As the Media Standards Trust demonstrated in <a href="http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/MST-IPSO-Analysis-15-11-13.pdf">a forensic demolition of IPSO’s claims</a> last November (which has never been rebutted), it satisfies just 12 of 38 recommendations. Fundamentally, while affecting to be “independent” of the industry, it is dominated at virtually every level of its operation by the “<a href="http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/23/apr/14/regulatory-funding-company-appoints-first-board">Regulatory Funding Company</a>” (RFC). </p>
<p>This mysterious body controls IPSO’s budget, its members’ pay, the regulatory code, investigations, sanctions, and will decide whether an arbitration system – the core of Leveson’s recommendations – should even be set up. Its constitution guarantees that it will ultimately be controlled by four publishers: Murdoch’s News UK, Associated Newspapers, the Telegraph Group and the Mirror Group. </p>
<p>The industry rejoiced when IPSO announced its <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/29/sir-alan-moses-ipso-chair-pcc">appointment of Sir Alan Moses</a>, the highly respected Appeal Court judge, as its first chair. Here, surely, was vindication of its claim to genuine independence. In truth, Sir Alan will find himself bound hand and foot by the rules laid down in the RFC’s articles. Rumour suggests that he will demand change; frankly, he might as well whistle.</p>
<p>There have been fine and good men and women before him who sincerely believed they could rein in the unaccountable power of Britain’s national press, and all with more experience of political skulduggery than even the most skillful Appeal Court judge. They failed, and so will he.</p>
<h2>It’s not over yet</h2>
<p>We must use the verdicts of this trial to send a resounding message to those newspaper groups who, even now, will try to argue we have reached the final act of this dismal affair. In fact, we have barely reached the end of Act One. </p>
<p>This is an opportunity finally and definitively to reclaim journalism for journalists, to implement the charter framework on press self-regulation that was based on Leveson’s carefully crafted recommendations, and to send a very clear message to those responsible for dragging journalism through the gutter: that there will be real and meaningful penalties for trashing ordinary people’s lives, in breach of the industry’s own code, in order to sell newspapers. </p>
<p>At the same time, there must be protection for the kind of genuine, informative, hard-hitting, watchdog journalism – whether in broadsheet, tabloid or online form – which is the foundation of a healthy democracy.</p>
<p>These are not incompatible aims. On the contrary, they are both enshrined in the charter framework, and can both be achieved with a combination of political willpower and journalistic integrity from those publishers that understand the need to stand up to corporate bullies. On their own, these verdicts change little. But they might just become a catalyst for urgent and permanent reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28354/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett is Professor of Communications at the University of Westminster and twice gave oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. He is a board member of Hacked Off.</span></em></p>
This is a defining moment for British journalism. Not because of the phone hacking verdicts, which frankly told us little more than the trial had already revealed. In October 2013, three senior News of…
Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of Westminster
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26263
2014-05-08T08:45:08Z
2014-05-08T08:45:08Z
Phone hacking judge sums up as Coulson holds firm on stand
<p>It seems that after six long months, the phone hacking trial is nearing its conclusion. The trial judge, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723801">Justice John Saunders</a>, has begun his summing up, and has instructed the jury to consider an <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/05/06/phone-hacking-trial-baroness-sayeeda-warsi-gives-character-reference-andy-coulson%20./">amendment to count seven</a> of the charges, relating to the allegation that Rebekah Brooks, her husband Charlie and News International security chief Mark Hanna removed and hid material to conceal evidence from police investigating hacking at the News of the World. </p>
<p>Now, the jury has been told, this charge has been changed from “conspiring to pervert course of justice” to “perverting the course of justice”.</p>
<p>But what has been of main interest over the last few weeks has been the defence and cross examination of Andy Coulson whose testimony has provided a valuable insight into the workings of national tabloid journalism. </p>
<p>Coulson, the prime minister’s former communications chief and one-time editor of the News of the World, is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24351068">on trial</a> for conspiracy to hack phones between <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/former-news-world-editor-andy-coulson-enters-hacking-trial-witness-box">2000 and 2006</a> and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public place.</p>
<p>Coulson’s cross-examination <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/14/phone-hacking-trial-andy-coulson-takes-stand">began</a> with insight into the workings of the tabloid press in the last 15 years. On the first day alone, the jury heard about the importance of contacts, the influence of PR people, and the widespread use of private investigators – though as far as private investigators were concerned, Coulson claimed he could not remember ever using one while he ran the Sun’s Bizarre column.</p>
<p>As the week progressed, Coulson’s barrister, Timothy Langdale QC, explored the finer points of editing a national newspaper. The jury was shown a floor plan of the News of the World offices, which included a “secret office” where high-profile stories were kept hidden lest they be leaked to competing titles. They heard that Coulson’s role as editor meant he wouldn’t have read the paper’s every word, and that he was principally concerned with the front pages and bigger stories.</p>
<p>Staff at the News of the World were given briefings on the “<a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/former-news-world-editor-andy-coulson-i-would-have-rejected-edward-snowdens-nsa-leak">dark arts</a>” of journalism, which Coulson described as “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27031723">investigative techniques</a>.” These included utilising surveillance, hidden cameras, recording devices and following people. </p>
<p>Asked about the phrase “turning a mobile”, Coulson said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“turning a mobile” or “spinning a mobile” – these are phrases that I heard during my time as an editor. To me it meant getting an address from a phone number or getting a phone number from an address, or vice versa. And I believed there were perfectly legal ways of doing that. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Coulson voiced regrets about how this process worked and how stories were investigated. He told the court that this was something he “should have applied my mind to”; “I should have looked at it more, interrogated it more,” <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27031723">he added</a>.</p>
<p>As for phone hacking, Coulson told the court that he was “<a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/15/phone-hacking-trial-coulson-didnt-rate-milly-dowler-story">aware of it</a> in very vague terms, it was in the ether, people gossiped about it.” But he denied that he was party to it – and claimed that in 2002, he did not know that intercepting voicemails broke the law. Not that that made it acceptable, of course: “It was intrusive and lazy journalism,” he said, <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-is-lazy-journalism-and-im-innocent-over-milly-dowler-9262016.html">adding</a>: “the people I worked with were never interested in phone hacking.”</p>
<p>Asked by his barrister if he was ever party to phone hacking at the News of the World, he simply <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/10767754/Andy-Coulson-denies-knowing-Milly-Dowlers-voicemail-was-hacked.html">replied</a>: “No.”</p>
<p>Before the court rose for the Easter recess, Coulson told the court that he still didn’t know phone hacking was an illegal act at the time of the <a href="http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/hacking-trial-live-tweets-16-Apr/">David Blunkett</a> affair in August 2004 – though he did listen to the former home secretary’s private messages at that time. He <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27046180">told the court</a> this was “the first and the only time voicemail messages were played to me”.</p>
<h2>Known unknowns</h2>
<p>Day four of Coulson’s spell in the witness box began with questions about former News of the World reporter Dan Evans, who claimed earlier in the trial that it was “<a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/hacking-trial/andy-coulson-i-did-not-knowingly-recruit-phone-hacked-to-notw/">obvious</a>” he was employed by Coulson for his skills in phone hacking. </p>
<p>Referring to a meeting in 2004, Langdale asked whether “anything [was] said by Dan Evans about or concerning phone hacking?” Coulson replied: “Not that I can remember.” Coulson also <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27107983">denied</a> that in 2005, as Evans claimed, he listened to a message left on actor Sienna Miller’s phone before the News of the World published a story about her relationship with Daniel Craig.</p>
<p>There was much that Coulson did not know about or could not remember. Asked by Langdale if he knew or suspected that reporter <a href="https://theconversation.com/journalism-in-the-dock-first-month-of-phone-hacking-trial-20737">Clive Goodman</a> (the News of the World’s royal editor, facing two counts of conspiring to make corrupt payments to public officials) had hired Glenn Mulcaire to intercept messages, Coulson replied: “<a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/22/phone-hacking-trial-actress-affair-and-relative-source">absolutely not</a>”. </p>
<p>Indeed, the court was told, it was not until the day of Goodman’s arrest in August 2006 that Coulson had <a href="http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/hacking-trial-live-tweets-23-Apr/">heard</a> of Mulcaire at all. Goodman’s claim that Coulson knew about Mulcaire was, Coulson said, “<a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/23/phone-hacking-trial-two-resignations-government-job-and-replica-gun">a lie</a>”.</p>
<p>However, the court heard that when Goodman and Mulcaire were <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jan/26/newsoftheworld.pressandpublishing1">sentenced to prison</a> on January 26 2007 for hacking royal voicemails, Coulson <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/23/phone-hacking-trial-two-resignations-government-job-and-replica-gun.">resigned </a> as editor of the News of the World because “I felt it was the right thing to do as I was the boss”.</p>
<p>As the defence case rested, the court heard that on July 9 2007, Coulson was appointed director of communications for the Conservative party only to resign from his position in January 2011. Explaining that resignation from Downing Street, Coulson said that given the “<a href="http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/hacking-trial-live-tweets-23-Apr/">long history of press coverage… I couldn’t do the job I was employed to do</a>”.</p>
<h2>Dowler and Blunkett</h2>
<p>The cross examination of Coulson by lead prosecutor, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/phone-hacking-mr-justice-saunders-andrew-edis-qc">Anthony Edis</a> QC, began on April 25. Edis took Coulson back to the Milly Dowler case and the News of the World story that the murdered schoolgirl was alive and looking for a job. </p>
<p>That story originally appeared on page 9 of the paper, but in later editions appeared on page 30 with quotes obtained from Dowler’s voicemail removed. Coulson rejected the accusation that there was a “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27158920">process of hiding the true source</a>”, and stated that the story’s initial prominent position was a “mistake”. Asked by Edis why verbatim quotations from voicemails were left out, <a href="http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/hacking-trial-live-tweets-25-Apr/">Coulson stated</a> that he couldn’t remember and didn’t know why.</p>
<p>Returning to David Blunkett’s hacked voicemails in 2004, Edis questioned Coulson’s decision not to ask reporter<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/30/phone-hacking-trial-news-of-world-staff"> Neville Thurlbeck </a> how he had obtained the information. Denying that he already knew from whence they came, <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/25/phone-hacking-trial-denials-dowler-and-dark-arts">Coulson conceded his error</a>: “I asked no questions, I accept that, it was a failure on my part.”</p>
<p>Edis then managed to draw out of Coulson the admission that he was lying to Blunkett later when, on the record, the pair met to discuss whether or not the News of the World would publish the details of Blunkett’s love affair. At this meeting Coulson did not tell Blunkett that the private details had come from hacking. He had been, he admitted, <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/28/phone-hacking-trial-coulson-challenged-david-blunkett-affair-tapes">“disingenuous”. </a> Repeatedly, Edis asked: “so you lied to him?” Eventually, the judge<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-trial-andy-coulson-knew-david-blunkett-affair-story-came-from-hacked-voicemails-9299128.html"> Justice Saunders intervened:</a> “Were you telling a deliberate untruth? Yes or no?” After a moment’s hesitation, Coulson said: “Yes”.</p>
<p>Edis’s questioning frequently touched on the editorship of the News of the World and how much knowledge and control Coulson had. Referring to the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/28/andy-coulson-accused-hiding-payment-police-officer?CMP=ema_546">routine payment of police officers</a> and the hacking of leading politicians’ phones, it was put to the defendant that he didn’t want to know where the resulting stories had come from. To which Coulson replied: “I don’t think I did.” </p>
<p><a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/28/phone-hacking-trial-careless-not-couldnt-care-less-andy-coulson-tells-jury">Edis then asked Coulson:</a> “Is the explanation that you couldn’t care less or that you were slapdash and careless?” to which Coulson replied: “I accept I was careless, but not that I couldn’t care less.”</p>
<p>As the cross examination ended, Edis focused on Coulson’s resignation as the government’s director of communications in 2011. The timing of his resignation was, Coulson said, to do with the increasing difficulty he had doing his job. <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/29/phone-hacking-trial-coulson-denies-resigning-truth-was-about-come-out">Not according to Edis</a> who stated: “You knew the truth was going to come out that you were involved in a conspiracy to hack phones.” Coulson denied this – and the court adjourned.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26263/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
It seems that after six long months, the phone hacking trial is nearing its conclusion. The trial judge, Justice John Saunders, has begun his summing up, and has instructed the jury to consider an amendment…
John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/19741
2013-10-31T21:29:04Z
2013-10-31T21:29:04Z
Press regulation: the case for the Royal Charter
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34187/original/9yshmrqt-1383238699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What does the future hold?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">cobalt123</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Britain’s press has been accustomed to a particular form of self-regulation, which I would call self-interested regulation. The bodies we have had, the <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/">Press Complaints Commission (PCC)</a> and its predecessors, have been demonstrably ineffective. I don’t say this because there were criminal acts – there was (by definition) legislation against those acts – but because those bodies lacked capacity to sanction their members, to prevent such action, or to provide redress for victims.</p>
<p>The PCC established a narrow gateway for what could come in as a complaint and then did what it called “reconciliation” – basically it was nice to people until they went away – and hardly ever required the media to print substantive corrections or apologies: even that most elementary function wasn’t being handled well.</p>
<p>It might be ideal to have a competent, self-regulating body, but it’s pretty clear that this is not available. A lot of people in the media today <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/10/31/royal-charter-press-regulation-reaction-times-daily-telegraph-daily-mail-sun-daily">are writing about the new proposals</a> as if they would shackle press freedom and warning that what has been proposed is a state-controlled body that could censor content. Nobody has proposed that. The new framework will not permit censorship of content.</p>
<h2>Running scared</h2>
<p>There is quite a complicated set of reasons why the debate has become so essentially trivial within the media. One reason is that it’s obviously quite difficult, even for editors who are very worried about what’s happened, to side with Lord Justice Leveson. It’s also been very difficult for politicians to take a stand.</p>
<p>After the phone-hacking scandal broke in 2011, the prime minister David Cameron, rightly, seeing that things had got out of hand, set up an inquiry that was to be both <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/terms-of-reference/">retrospective and prospective</a>. Much of the retrospective task could not be done by Leveson because it was <em>sub judice</em> – the trials are only beginning in some cases. On the prospective task he was criticised before he’d said a word, and a very typical comment was that there should be no press regulation; the press should be free to say what they want within the law.</p>
<p>That is, in my view, a completely question-begging intervention in a debate about policy because the point is to work out what the law should be. We all agree that action has to be “within the law”. The question is what those laws should be. And Leveson obviously takes to heart the classical arguments since the 17th century about censorship and prior restraint and has looked for a way in which you take those arguments seriously, but don’t have Mickey Mouse regulation that suits the media but creates risks for others.</p>
<h2>Press Freedom</h2>
<p>When I started writing about press freedom in 2001 it seemed to be a curiously old-fashioned topic, as though all that was done and dusted: “We don’t need to think about it: of course we want a free press and it’s obvious what it is”. And it was only when I started looking more carefully at the classical arguments that I began to see that we in fact have some radically different arguments for press freedom jostling out there.</p>
<p>My perception through all of this is that politicians are frightened. Why do we have a cross-party agreement and not a parliamentary vote? I think it’s like having three small children on a diving board, where jumping into the deep water is quite frightening. So they hold hands. When I first heard of the proposal to use the Privy Council I thought: “That’s really odd.” I’ve come to think that doing so has a certain merit, in that it puts a super-majority in the way of subsequent parliamentary tampering with the system once it’s established. So while I wouldn’t generally think we should do things through the Privy Council, there may be a point here.</p>
<h2>Standards on the slide</h2>
<p>I think for some time a lot of people thought that press standards had been on the slide in the UK, and more on the slide than in some other countries. I think of serious journalists such as <a href="http://en.idi.org.il/media/1429207/ByThePeople_LLOYD.pdf">John Lloyd</a> and <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/journalism-is-in-terrible-trouble-a-large-amount-of-it-is-repetitive-garbage-broadcaster-andrew-marr-tells-ian-fraser-and-edinburgh-book-festival-how-to-restore-standards-in-journalism-1.44702">Andrew Marr</a> writing about it, and you can see that they have long been extremely worried at the increasing dominance in the media of scandal and innuendo; the loss of any distinction between news and comment had become more commonplace. These routine worries have been growing for some years.</p>
<p>What’s interesting is that those worries preceded the widespread use of the internet. They were worries about the print media, and in this country about the contrast between the print media and the broadcast media – where we do have <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">forms of process regulation</a> that have generally produced more reliable standards of journalism. Now these standards are never going to be 100% effective, but the trend in the print media had got a lot of serious journalists and other people worried.</p>
<p>The nub of the newspaper industry’s argument is that any regulation of the press is going to have an adverse impact on investigative journalism. I disagree with this - but I also think it’s worth noting that very little of what the media does is genuine investigative journalism. So this was not a very good argument for leaving the media as it is. It’s quite common for people to claim that what they’re doing is investigative journalism, but when you look at the standards they are bringing to it you doubt whether they are really in the business of investigating. What investigative journalism most needs is to regain its honourable reputation as serious inquiry into what has happened, that uses adequate methods and standards of investigation.</p>
<p>There was also one other political event that affected the news media in the UK: the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents">2003 Communications Act</a> altered the threshold for anti-monopoly provisions so it was possible to concentrate ownership more. Now, the Leveson Inquiry, and what’s gone on since, has not addressed this question. But I think it’s a <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/03/08/breaking-the-silence-the-case-for-media-ownership-reform/">very serious issue</a>, perhaps as serious as regulation. We already have print media ownership that is highly concentrated and very largely consists of rich individual proprietors who in many cases are not citizens and not taxpayers, and I think this is probably an unhealthy situation. We may have thought that the domination of press barons 80 years ago was an unhealthy situation, but I worry about where we’ve got to now.</p>
<p><em>This article by Baroness Onora O’Neill is based on an interview with Josh Booth that originally appeared in [King’s Review](http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2013/10/28/power-and-publication-an-interview-with-onora-oneill/](http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2013/10/28/power-and-publication-an-interview-with-onora-oneill/)</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19741/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Onora O'Neill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Britain’s press has been accustomed to a particular form of self-regulation, which I would call self-interested regulation. The bodies we have had, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and its predecessors…
Onora O'Neill, Emeritus Professor of Philosopy, University of Cambridge
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/11062
2012-11-29T23:53:46Z
2012-11-29T23:53:46Z
Leveson report: late opening at the last chance saloon for David Cameron
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18176/original/2cgryftj-1354230704.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">British Prime Minister, David Cameron leaves 10 Downing street to give a statement on Lord Justice Leveson's report.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Few public inquiries have been so closely followed by the British press, or its findings awaited by them with such nervous anticipation as Lord Leveson’s into their culture, practices and ethics. </p>
<p>The waiting is over, however, and Leveson’s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-executive-summary">four-volume report</a> is now being digested by all stakeholders. Australian media watchers will also be absorbing its conclusions over the weekend, in the knowledge that post-<a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/146994/Report-of-the-Independent-Inquiry-into-the-Media-and-Media-Regulation-web.pdf">Finkelstein</a> there is pressure for reform of press regulation in this country too. Will Leveson influence the Australian debate?</p>
<p>The inquiry’s conclusions will be disquieting for many, because they use the term “statutory” in relation to the proposed new system of press self-regulation for the UK. Leveson has rejected a proposal for a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission, and argued instead for a legally constituted mechanism which would be “genuinely independent” of the industry.</p>
<p>This would not be statutory press regulation, Leveson insists, and such a body would be clearly distanced from political interference or control, but it would have legal recognition. “What is proposed here,” he writes, “is independent regulation of the press organised by the press, with a statutory verification process to ensure that the required levels of independence and effectiveness are met”.</p>
<p>Prime Minister David Cameron, who established the public inquiry, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-david-cameron-rejects">immediately rejected</a> its key finding, on the grounds that such a legal process would “ultimately infringe on free speech and a free press”.</p>
<p>His deputy in the coalition government, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg, has on the other hand expressed his support for the recommendation, as has the Labour party leader Ed Miliband. What we can say, therefore, is that if the Tories lose the next election, as the opinion polls currently indicate is very likely, something like the system proposed by Leveson will probably come to pass.</p>
<p>This will depend to some extent on the behaviour of the media between now and then, and on the extent to which the victims of phone-hacking - celebrity and non-celebrity alike - keep up the pressure for reform. The coming wave of court cases involving dozens of journalists and editors, including former senior News International executives Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, can also be expected to have a bearing on the public and political mood.</p>
<p>For now, though, Cameron’s preferred option is to declare late opening hours at the last chance saloon, that place of reckoning last invoked in the early 1990s when the British press faced similar criticisms of privacy violation, and the same calls for statutory regulation of their newsgathering and reporting activities. That earlier wave of public revulsion produced the <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/history.html">Press Complaints Commission</a>, and a threat from the then-Conservative government that if the British press did not put its own ethical house in order, the law would be invoked.</p>
<p>Twenty years down the track, another Tory prime minister has been required to make the same declaration. Details remain unclear, but it’s reported that the press industry will be given up to a year to propose a non-statutory system of self-regulation that is stronger and more effective than the present PCC model, but falls short of crossing the legal Rubicon so feared by many.</p>
<p>Whether this will be enough to satisfy the almost universal sense of outrage directed towards News International and other press organisations following the phone-hacking scandal seems unlikely. Much will depend on how the news media conduct themselves in the next year or two, and which party, or coalition of parties, forms the next UK government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11062/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian McNair receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>
Few public inquiries have been so closely followed by the British press, or its findings awaited by them with such nervous anticipation as Lord Leveson’s into their culture, practices and ethics. The waiting…
Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/11083
2012-11-29T22:10:45Z
2012-11-29T22:10:45Z
Leveson too quiet on relationship between politicians and press
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18172/original/5mkv8jw3-1354226834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Murdered school girl Millie Dowler's parents arrive at the release of the Leveson Report.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Kerim Okten</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Leveson Inquiry, set up by the UK coalition government in response to accusations of phone hacking at the now defunct Murdoch newspaper the News of the World, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-executive-summary">has reported</a> – calling for press regulation enshrined in law designed to prevent the press “wreaking havoc” and protect “innocent people”. The impact on freedom of speech – if the government even accepts the recommendations – is the subject of endless debate but Leveson’s statement is relatively quiet on the real issues behind the culture of press arrogance which led to its getting out of hand in the first place.</p>
<p>The most revealing aspect of the collective evidence was not in fact the lengths to which journalists will go to break stories. The public disgust over <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/06/leveson-inquiry-police-bribery-sun">bribes to the police</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-list-victims-phone-hacking">hacking the phones</a> of murder victims was tempered by the fact that most people don’t consider the tabloids to be particularly moral. That they’re also corrupt and even criminal isn’t too much of a stretch. </p>
<p>Much more shocking was that the press had been getting away with it for years without ending up in court (a previous inquiry was dropped). Further revelations about the disproportionate influence that certain sections of the media hold in society went some way to explain. Testimony after testimony showed the quite intricate and intimate connections between some of the most important people across British public life and at the heart of them all were representatives from the media. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/15/leveson-inquiry-adam-boulton">Pyjama parties</a> at Downing Street attended by Rupert Murdoch’s wife showed that it wasn’t necessarily the press who were doing the courting.</p>
<p>That the Murdoch news outlets, at least informally, have had agreements with various parties offering support, intensifying in the run-up to elections, in return for commercial advantage has often been mooted. In Britain, the Murdoch newspapers supported the Conservatives under Thatcher, but prior to the 1997 election, switched support to New Labour, following an alleged meeting with then leader Tony Blair. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-prime-minister">In his testimony</a>, Rupert Murdoch flatly stated that he “never asked a prime minister for anything”, but <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/9324291/Leveson-Inquiry-Gordon-Browns-evidence-five-key-points.html">evidence</a> from Gordon Brown suggested that the Murdoch empire was clearly looking for support for its UK media expansion, if not directly asking for it. Texts from culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, who was responsible for overseeing the bid from News Corp to take full control of BSkyB, to James Murdoch like “<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/31/texts-hunt-murdoch">Congrats on Brussels</a>. Just Ofcom to go” might just be circumstantial, but the coincidence of interests is undeniable.</p>
<p>Based on stuff like this, and of course the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6499657/MPs-expenses-scandal-a-timeline.html">expenses scandal</a> of 2009, it’s perhaps not surprising that the public are switching off from politics. Polls consistently show that public trust in politicians is at an <a href="http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/yougov">all time low</a> in the UK. But again it is the media who are largely responsible for the way we see our politicians; their agenda-setting powers play a crucial role in shaping politicians’ images, both collectively and individually. The most obvious impact is the need for political leaders to be media-friendly - William was never going to cut it.</p>
<p>But there is another side to this; the way media attacks influence who is hired and fired. While Jeremy Hunt survived the revelations about his inappropriate dealings with the Murdoch empire, Tory Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/21/andrew-mitchell-resignation-cabinet-split">forced to go</a> following his Downing Street rant in spite of the support of his party. He was unable to draw a line under the affair was the problem – he tried but the media wouldn’t let him. </p>
<p>This goes way beyond the Murdoch papers to the wider popular press. It was comedian Steve Coogan in his testimony that compared the media to “<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/22/leveson-inquiry-steve-coogan-marina-hyde">the mafia</a>” – if you dare to take them on they will “use their newspapers as a weapon against you”. Ironically, in an era where we hear so much about the death of the newspaper industry, digital media appear to only intensify these attacks, and as a result their influence. Coogan also said that he knew others who felt the same but didn’t have “the stomach” to take them on; it’s not a great leap to assume that some politicians, and maybe even some at the top, are also running scared.</p>
<p>But that’s why the Leveson was important and necessary – it brought some of these issues out into the open. On the stand, big political players including David Cameron and Alistair Campbell admitted that the political classes had conceded too much power to the media. </p>
<p>It was the confidence borne from this power that that led sections of the media to believe they were untouchable. Leveson acknowledged the damaging impact of this cosiness and the need for “a little more transparency”, but hasn’t recommended significant changes in this area. </p>
<p>Hopefully his proposed regulation will lead to a curbing of some of the excesses of the press, but it does feel a little like dealing with the effects rather than the underlying cause.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Happer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The Leveson Inquiry, set up by the UK coalition government in response to accusations of phone hacking at the now defunct Murdoch newspaper the News of the World, has reported – calling for press regulation…
Catherine Happer, Research Associate, Glasgow University Media Group, University of Glasgow
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/10880
2012-11-21T19:53:27Z
2012-11-21T19:53:27Z
UK phone hacking victims’ lawyer Charlotte Harris In Conversation: full transcript
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17826/original/g4s97n8p-1353380607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UK lawyer Charlotte Harris, who represented phone hacking victims, said the police should have acted to protect the public.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo © Mishcon de Reya; Used with permission. All rights reserved.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Charlotte Harris, thanks for getting together with us. We’re doing this interview when Lord Leveson – the Leveson Inquiry’s been one of the most major inquiries ever held into media in the UK – when his report is expected within a matter of weeks. And the remit of the Leveson Inquiry was to examine the phone-hacking scandals that engulfed Rupert Murdoch’s News International, especially since July 2011.</p>
<p>But to me, there’s two astounding things about all this. First is the extent of the scandal: the scale of the phone hacking, the breaking into emails, the bribery of public officials and so forth that was routinely practised by the Murdoch tabloids. But the second astonishing thing is that the scandal almost never became a public scandal in a large and revealing way.</p>
<p>For a long time, News International’s cover-up, its stonewalling, looked as if it might succeed, because the first public evidence of the scandal was in January 2007 when a News of the World reporter Clive Goodman and a private investigator Glen Mulcaire were both sent to prison for having hacked into the phones of the royal princes.</p>
<p>And the News defence at that time was that this was just the work of a single rogue reporter. And it’s really four-and-a-half years - between January 2007 till July 2011 - before the scandal explodes.</p>
<p>Now, one important element in the cracking of these defences, especially when the police were so passive and uninterested, was the mounting of civil cases. In fact, these civil cases have probably played more of a role in this scandal than in most others. And you and your colleague Mark Lewis were centrally involved in this. So could you tell us how you came to be involved? What was the start of your involvement in this, in this whole saga?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Originally, I was an associate at a firm in Manchester that looked after the Professional Footballers’ Association and so I did the Gordon Taylor case with Mark Lewis, but that’s the only time he’s ever been my colleague.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Oh, OK.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> So I don’t work with Mark now. The second phone-hacking case, or the third if you count the princes, was Max Clifford, who is the publicist.</p>
<p>So Gordon Taylor’s case was settled in a secret settlement. And, as it happened, which was interesting, was that I wasn’t actually party to the settlement. That was something that Mark did and I wasn’t aware of the secret settlement because I was giving birth at the time. And I never went back to work with Mark after that.</p>
<p>But I did go on and do on my own the third case, which was Max Clifford’s case. And Max Clifford’s case was also settled, except the so-called secret settlement wasn’t secret for more than, I think, a day, which is quite interesting given Max. Max did us all a great favour actually. At the time, when I realised that the case (was being settled), I had a furious [argument] with Max and I said “What happens now? It might be the end.” And he said, “Don’t worry, poppet”.</p>
<p>And he was right and Max has really taught me things that nobody else could teach me. Anyway, the fact is that, you know, Max had started it and very soon, people heard that there had been this settlement for a lot of money.</p>
<p>Now, by then I was already looking after Sky Andrews, who was a sports agent. And, whether it’s right or whether it’s wrong, the fact is, the news of these huge damages paid out certainly attracted attention from potential claimants.</p>
<p>Now, one of these things came up in the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom">Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee</a>, where Tom Crone, who was the News International lawyer at the time, was asked: in relation to the Gordon Taylor settlement (which something like, allegedly, 425,000 pounds), why was he paid so much?</p>
<p>Now, we know now that this was a huge cover-up and that actually, this needed to shut them down. What Tom Crone said about it was [it was] a commercial value of how much damages this would have been worth.</p>
<p>Now, in the second tranche of litigation, claimants are being told that their hacking is worth something like 5000 pounds, 10,000 pounds. But Tom Crone wasn’t necessarily wrong when he said that. It’s very easy to say “Well, Tom Crone lied to the committee.” I don’t think he did. I think the commercial value of the cover-up, and the commercial value in terms of going and losing the case and the legal fees on the other side, possibly was as much as that. Because, certainly, now that we have hundreds of claimants, not only has the price of damages gone down, it’s become almost the exact opposite of what it was in the beginning.</p>
<p>Starting up working on the Gordon Taylor case and working on Max Clifford’s case and Sky Andrew’s – the front runners – and later Mark Thompson who is a lawyer at another law firm in the UK who has also been very central, somewhat of an unsung hero, I think. He did Sienna Miller’s case. And these cases were so difficult because you had to constantly go to court and say “Can we have this disclosure? Can we see these papers?” And the answer would always be “They don’t exist.” They were: “You’re barking up the wrong tree. They’ve been destroyed.”</p>
<p>Turned out, they did exist. People might have thought they were destroyed. But these things, you tend to be able to find. And slowly, slowly it all began to crumble. The pressure [was] put on the metropolitan police to explain themselves. Why on Earth hadn’t they, when the princes’ phones had originally been intercepted, why on Earth hadn’t they notified these victims?</p>
<p>Now, originally, in the princes’ case – so again, I’m way back in 2007 – we had been told that there were categories of victim. So, there were supermodels – that’s Elle – with the first one who was the example. The sports agent – that’s our Sky Andrews – who was very helpful later. Max Clifford, we know, was helpful. Gordon Taylor – the first one after the princes’ – and the MP Simon Hughes who took an action later on, once it had all got going.</p>
<p>Now, that was very misleading because those categories – MPs, sports agents, celebrity – missed out on what essentially became the 2011 big exposé, which was: victims of crime, ordinary people, and the families of victims of crime.</p>
<p>And when those categories were revealed, and it was those people who hadn’t been notified, whilst there had been some kind of public consumption for the press saying “Celebrities, you know, who cares about them? They put themselves in the public eye. MPs – public interest,” and all these other excuses. Not their own readers. Public, massive public outcry over Milly Dowler and that, it was really then, that the story came into the press.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Really exploded.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yes.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> It was already breaking down.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> It was breaking down but I really agree with you that one of the most fascinating things about this is the cover-up. And it’s not just a cover-up by News International and this is not just an attack on Murdoch’s paper.</p>
<p>What was fascinating was the fact that the British press – the British press who had for so long said that it’s a free press and they should continue to be self-regulated because they exposed scandal – failed, systematically failed to expose their own scandal.</p>
<p>And it shone a light of hypocrisy on them and it was really that and the (Leveson) inquiry opening, and then once the inquiry opened, we started to find out a lot more – not just about the narrow criminality of phone-hacking but about the process of media and media efforts.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen</strong>: Yeah, well I think that’s crucial. Can I take you back a little way to your involvement in these cases? I mean even celebrities are not necessarily non-human beings.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I agree. I’m very pro-celebrities having private lives. I think that they form quite a lot of my clients. I only meant it in forms of perception.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> But the damage that News of The World and others did to them. At one level, it’s the exposure of their private lives – like they’re having a tiff with their boyfriend or whatever – but at the other level it seems to me is the impact on their personal relationships, about who can they trust. And you read again and again of people saying “I thought this friend of mine was betraying me,” or “I thought my secretary was betraying me” or whatever. And so it’s sort of set up this paranoia, which must have had very damaging consequences on their immediate circle of relationships. Did you see that at close hand?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yes, absolutely. And so it’s very Hitchcockian. It’s very gaslighting. It’s like going into somebody’s house and moving around the furniture and insisting it was always like that. And we see that with Mary Ellen Field’s case, where she was blamed for leaking information that turned out to have been, or we suspect, the subject of hacking – and I’m not a lawyer on that case. Mary Ellen Field is an Australian lady who used to be one of the assistants to Elle Macpherson.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> What shocked you as you got into these things? [You were] working with little prospect of overall success for some years. What were some of your biggest shocks?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I spent a lot of the early years carrying a baby and pregnant. So part of my memory of the early – and I’m sure that lots of women will understand this because you remember what happened very clearly in the years you were pregnant and how pregnant you were – and I remember being close to bursting point, so very heavily pregnant with my second child, having been up all night with my first baby who was still in nappies and not yet one, and going for a disclosure exercise at the information commissioner’s place and sitting in a room full of the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/31/press-privacy-information-commmissioner">Operation Motorman</a> stuff and it was absolutely teeming with it and looking through this evidence and realising the widespread use of private investigators by all of the media.</p>
<p>It was looking at all of this evidence and realising that there was this situation where private detectives had been used for years and years and that people knew about it and that nothing had been done. That’s in terms of things like <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14120244">blagging</a> and finding out people’s ex-directory telephone numbers and all of this information. And there was another point where I started to get disclosure from the other side and it was clear that it was wider.</p>
<p>I think the point that is my big, big turning point with it was my client [who] is an actress, Leslie Ash. She is married to the ex-premier league footballer Lee Chapman.</p>
<p>Now, Leslie has gone on the television and she’d said “It is terrible that the metropolitan police will not give me my papers and I want to see.” So she was very brave and an early voice as well.</p>
<p>So we made our way down to the metropolitan police and we’d said we want to look for Leslie Ash’s name and also her married name, which is Leslie Chapman. Because that’s what her accounts may have been in.</p>
<p>And so they showed us these papers and Leslie and Lee and I are looking at them and the policeman said something along the lines of “You know, well this says Leslie Chapman, but you can see that it says Fulham, which is where they lived, but it doesn’t have a Fulham postcode.” And I looked at it and I said “It doesn’t say Fulham; it says Soham.”</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> So this is actually, you made a very major contribution to the investigation here, didn’t you? Because you could read Glen Mulcaire’s writing.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Well, what we were discussion earlier is the quite ironic and scary similarity between Glen Mulcaire’s handwriting and my handwriting.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> And the significance of the fact that the word was Soham…</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> And Leslie Chapman happens to be the same name as the father of the murdered schoolgirl Jessica Chapman. And so suddenly…</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Which happened in Soham.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yeah, which happened in Soham, which was a terrible, terrible murder.</p>
<p>And when I saw that, I mean, you know, terribly shocking for my client, but it was then – and this in January, this was before the Milly Dowler story in March – and when I saw that, it all suddenly came crashing down that this wasn’t, as I up until then had thought it was, about those five categories but it was wider.</p>
<p>This is in January 2011. So I had worked all that time and not known that. And so I said to the policeman that he must tell <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Akers">Sue Akers</a> (Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the British Metropolitan Police Service). And then I found it difficult to sleep for a while.</p>
<p>So I ended up making an appointment with Sue Akers myself. I wasn’t happy until I’d actually told her face-to-face myself. But, I think, and I know that this is a piece of information that’s been out there for some time -— that Tom Watson wrote about in Dial M for Murdoch,](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9229094/Dial-M-for-Murdoch-by-Tom-Watson-and-Martin-Hickman-review.html) his book. But it was an important moment for me. But it didn’t actually; it didn’t actually come out until the Dowler’s had a very public campaign. But it shouldn’t take a public campaign by the parents of a murdered schoolgirl to make the police act, let alone the newspapers. I mean the police are meant to be protecting us.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> The fact that the complete immorality and cynicism of it was bought home by the affair, but this Soham -— what were their names? I’m sorry, the victims…</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Yes, and that really showed that it wasn’t a one-off.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yes, that’s when I knew. And I had a conversation with somebody at News of the World about it at the time.</p>
<p>It was around that time a little later that somebody gave me a package that had the material that showed that I’d been under surveillance. And again, it’s not something that I went to the press with, just like I wouldn’t have gone to the press with the Soham [issue] because I thought that that there were proper ways of getting it done and that was through telling News International, through telling the police. Now I accept that there has to be an element of campaigning and it took me a long time to get there because I just thought that they would do something about what was clearly lawbreaking. I thought that telling the police would be enough. Maybe that’s my naivete.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> So when we look at that period of four years until the beginning of 2011, what would you say about the performance of the police and perhaps about the prosecution service?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Shocking. It shouldn’t have taken civil actions. I wrote letter after letter after letter to the police on behalf of my clients. Many of those clients now did turn out to be victims and I’d received the most ridiculous responses. For instance, on Leslie Ash… we said ‘Is there any information on Leslie Ash/Chapman because we suspect her phone was intercepted’ and the police wrote back and they said, ‘Well, there’s some bits of paper. They’ve got her numbers on it and her account number but you can’t see them and it doesn’t mean that she was hacked.’</p>
<p>And she had to go for a… disclosure order pre-action which cost her 18,000 pounds which, thankfully, she’s recovered.</p>
<p>But had it not been for, you know, Leslie Ash saying ‘Fine, I’ll pay the money, I’ll take the risk’, you’d have to pay for your own pre-action disclosures. It’s only once you take a case and win that you get the money back.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> She took a big risk.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yeah thank you, Leslie. It’s not a small amount of money. She shouldn’t have had to pay that. The police simply should have said, ‘This is what’s happened.’</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> When you look back at the performance of the police over that period, which seems to me at various points quite mind-boggling, from the conviction of Mulcaire and Goodman on, it’s sort of, you know, they’re a part of the cover-up a lot of the time.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Very much part of the cover-up. And if you ask them about it like I have done we were just told ‘Well, we’re drawing the line and we’re doing our own investigation.’ We haven’t heard much about the police internal investigation.</p>
<p>Because the police were meant to be protecting us. This is not to let the newspapers off the hook, they are currently an unregulated bunch, commercial, censored by their own proprietors, and that’s a free press. So my expectations of them are, you have to say, lower. I think that they have obligations, I really do, but the police - I’m upset about it.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> We don’t have definitive proof, but how would you explain police behaviour at that time.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I think there was a long history of a relationship between the press, and maybe particularly News International, and the police in terms of leaking of information. I think it had all got terribly casual and out of hand. I think that the iron triangle that was the very powerful press, the Murdoch press, their relationship with Parliament, and their relationship with MPs, and then the relationship with the police, meant that somewhere there was formed a kind of strange institutional narcissism that made them feel that they were in some ways above the law.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> And a set of alliances.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> And these lofty sort of self-justifications that you hear are extraordinary. And so hypocritical and yet if you say they’re hypocritical nobody responds.</p>
<p>For instance, the whole thing about ‘If you believe in free press why didn’t you report on the scandal’. No response, ever. Nobody says anything to that. I have not heard one, in all these fights I’ve had with various journalists and editors. Not once has anybody come up with anything that is a reasonable response to that.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> One of the interesting things about all this is the role of lawyers and it seems to me it raises, especially on the other side, where does professional obligation finish and unscrupulous partisan promotion for your side start? I notice in particular that you were subjected, simply because you were a lawyer for some of these victims, to two periods of surveillance. At least one of these seems to have been on the direct recommendation of News International solicitors.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yeah, it’s a really strange one. I know that [News of the World lawyer] Julian Pike has said that he’d do it again, and he was certainly very cross, and has justified doing it.</p>
<p>But frankly, I’m on the other side of lawyers the whole time in cases, and the idea that I would go and order their children’s birth certificates, to have a look… I have to say that while I’ve been very robust about it, I am somewhat creeped out by the fact that these things were on order whilst I was writing what I thought were quite sensible letters.</p>
<p>I am uniquely equipped, and robust about these things, but having found about the surveillance in retrospect, having found out about it once the scandal had emerged, it was oddly reassuring because when you are told by the other side for years that you’re wrong, that you are barking up the wrong tree, that you are simply promoting yourself, and that this has got everything to do with celebrities – and then you find out, all within the space of a few weeks, that actually it’s not celebrities only, it is proper victims of crime, and their families, and murdered schoolchildren, and that you weren’t wrong, and that they did know about it, and that they put you under surveillance to see what they could find to stop you from doing it.</p>
<p>I’m kind of grateful for knowing about it because it did rather prove that I wasn’t barking up the wrong tree after all. I’m afraid that all of it was part of the behaviour. What you say about what happens in terms of lawyers, to be fair I’m a lawyer now, I mainly deal with claims although sometimes I represent the other side, and also I’ve been very interested in how the law has been developing.</p>
<p>But you have to make sure that you remain sensible and forensic and work on evidence so that you don’t end up pushing what you believe in too much, because lawyers have to base things on good, clear evidence. That means there can’t be any exaggeration. I think that some of the News International lawyers, I think they went a bit institutional with it. I think they became indoctrinated in the philosophy of their proprietor’s in the same way as journalists.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> It very much seems to be a News International style that, ‘Someone’s criticised us for this, we’ll discredit them by looking at their sex lives or whatever, and that will then make the criticism go away’. That seems to be almost their modus operandi.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yes, that you have to be absolutely top notch, pure. That’s why I would quite like it if I was writing these proposals, I’d make editors have a little ethics test. Maybe they could have a little certificate that they were a fair and proper person. We could put some cameras in there.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Yeah, well good luck. It could create a few vacancies.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> It could do. That’s why I also worry about having these industry people on the self-regulated panel.</p>
<p>I mean which former industry people would they choose? Because a lot of them are in quite a lot of trouble.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> I just want to move now from the past to the present and the future. Before the scandal exploded, the interaction of several forces, the civil cases, parliament, journalists etc., all aided each other and produced a total cumulative effect.</p>
<p>But now I’m worried that there’s a chance that these different elements will get in each other’s way. I know, for example, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/10/robert-jay-qc-language-leveson">Robert Jay</a> [lead counsel at the Leveson Inquiry] had to really soft pedal his questioning of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/andy-coulson">Andy Coulson</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/rebekahwade">Rebekah Brooks</a> because of the criminal things, so especially there’s a danger that there will be a prejudice of criminal trials.</p>
<p>I think we can expect that all these people have hired very good lawyers who will concentrate very much on procedural issues to avoid getting at the substance of it, and I’m now little worried we won’t get a good clear overview and a good set of criminal prosecutions emerging from it all. Do you think this is a fair worry or is it overblown?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I think we’re going to be OK. I think that there was soft pedaling and it was for good reason. Apparently we’re going to have another trial for the second tranche of phone hacking victims in Spring. Whether we will or whether they’ll settle is a matter for speculation. I think that Robert Jay was very careful and for good reason, and that we have preserved a fair criminal trial… One of the things that has been a complaint of victims of the press is that they are given trial by media. And so we have to be patient and wait and hope that this time due process happens.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Do you think the civil cases from now on will, in terms of their public importance, become less important? Do you think the moment for civil cases in this whole scandal is less?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I think we’ve done our job. I think civil cases brought it out and now it’s a little bit personal injury-esque because we get our papers automatically. There’s still various fights to be had, but yeah, I think the next thing will be what happens to the police, what happens to those who have been accused? And what happens in terms of the outcome of Leveson. What will the press do next, whether they’re independently regulated or whether they continue to be self-regulated, how will they behave?</p>
<p>And in terms of what I will doing in two or three years time, I honestly can’t very easily quite know what I’ll be dealing with because even after all this I’m not sure which way its going to turn out.</p>
<p>I have an idea of what Justice Leveson is going to recommend but I’m not yet sure whether or not it will actually be implemented. I hope that it is but not necessarily. There may be yet be one more drink in the last chance saloon.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> It could well be that if you come back to Sydney in a year’s time this will all still be going on.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Well, yes I’m having a great education here.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Well, Charlotte, congratulations on your role in all this and thank you very much for talking to us today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10880/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Tiffen received funding from the ARC in the past.</span></em></p>
Rod Tiffen: Charlotte Harris, thanks for getting together with us. We’re doing this interview when Lord Leveson – the Leveson Inquiry’s been one of the most major inquiries ever held into media in the…
Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/10869
2012-11-21T19:53:24Z
2012-11-21T19:53:24Z
UK phone hacking victims’ lawyer Charlotte Harris: ‘The police were meant to be protecting us’
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17814/original/pvxccp53-1353373263.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UK lawyer Charlotte Harris, whose clients included victims of the Murdoch phone hacking scandal, said the police should have done more to protect people.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo © Mishcon de Reya; Used with permission. All rights reserved</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ramifications of the UK phone hacking scandal, in which murder victims, journalists and politicians had their phones tapped, are still playing out.</p>
<p>Last year the scandal sank the UK tabloid, The News of the World (NOTW), and led to the public shaming of Rupert Murdoch and his son James. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/20/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-face-charges">Now News International executive Rebekah Brooks and former NOTW editor Andy Coulson</a>, along with around 50 others, face criminal charges and the inquiry chaired by Lord Leveson is expected soon to release its findings.</p>
<p>Today, The Conversation presents a discussion between UK lawyer Charlotte Harris, who represented some of the phone hacking victims, and Rod Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, who is writing a book about Rupert Murdoch.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-phone-hacking-victims-lawyer-charlotte-harris-in-conversation-full-transcript-10880">Read the full transcript here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> To me, there’s two astounding things about all this. First is the extent of the scandal: the scale of the phone hacking, the breaking into emails, the bribery of public officials that was routinely practised by the Murdoch tabloids. But the second astonishing thing is that the scandal almost never became a public scandal in a large and revealing way. For four and a half years – from the convictions of journalist Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in January 2007 until July 2011 when the Guardian published that murder victim Milly Dowler’s phone had been tapped – News International publicly maintained the defence that it was all the work of a single rogue reporter.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> One of the most fascinating things about this is the cover-up… What was fascinating was the fact that the British press —- who had, for so long, said that it’s a free press and they should continue to be self-regulated because they exposed scandal – systematically failed to expose their own scandal.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> At one level, the damage comes from the exposure of peoples’ private lives but at the other it is the impact on their personal relationships. Did you see that?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Yes, absolutely. And so it’s very Hitchcockian. It’s very <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting">gaslighting</a>. It’s like going into somebody’s house and moving around the furniture and insisting it was always like that. And we see that with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3134484.htm">Mary Ellen Field’s case</a>, where she was blamed for leaking information that turned out to have been, or we suspect, the subject of hacking. Mary Ellen Field is an Australian lady who used to be one of the assistants to Elle Macpherson.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> What shocked you most as you got into these things?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> It was looking at all of this evidence and realising that there was this situation where private detectives had been used for years and years and that people knew about it and that nothing had been done.</p>
<p>My big, big turning point with it was my client, Leslie Ash, who is an actress and is married to the ex-premier league footballer Lee Chapman… She was very brave and an early voice as well. So we made our way down to the metropolitan police and we’d said we want to look for Leslie Ash’s name and also her married name, which is Leslie Chapman.</p>
<p>And so they showed us these papers and Leslie and Lee and I are looking at them and the policeman said something along the lines of “You know, well, this says Leslie Chapman, but you can see that it says Fulham, which is where they lived, but it doesn’t have a Fulham postcode.” And I looked at it and I said “It doesn’t say Fulham; it says Soham.”</p>
<p>And Leslie Chapman happens to be the same name as the father of the murdered schoolgirl Jessica Chapman… which happened in Soham and which was a terrible, terrible murder.</p>
<p>This was in January 2011. When I saw that, it all suddenly came crashing down, that this wasn’t, as I up until then had thought it was, just about celebrities.</p>
<p>…..</p>
<p>(The scale of the phone hacking) didn’t actually come out until the Dowlers had a very public campaign. But it shouldn’t take a public campaign by the parents of a murdered schoolgirl to make the police act, let alone the newspapers. I mean, the police are meant to be protecting us.</p>
<p>At that time, I thought that that there were proper ways of getting it done and that was through telling News International, through telling the police. Now I accept that there has to be an element of campaigning. And it took me a long time to get there because I just thought that they would do something about what was clearly lawbreaking. I thought that telling the police would be enough. Maybe that’s my naivete.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> What would you say about the performance of the police and perhaps about the prosecution service?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> Shocking. It shouldn’t have taken civil actions. I wrote letter after letter to the police on behalf of my clients. Many of those clients now did turn out to be victims and I had received the most ridiculous responses.</p>
<p>We said is there any information on Leslie Ash/Chapman because we suspect her phone was intercepted? And the police wrote back and they said, ‘Well, there’s some bits of paper. They’ve got her numbers on it and her account number but you can’t see them and it doesn’t mean that she was hacked.’</p>
<p>And she had to go for a… disclosure order pre-action which cost her 18,000 pounds which, thankfully, she’s recovered. She shouldn’t have had to pay that. The police simply should have said, ‘This is what’s happened’.</p>
<p>The police were meant to be protecting us. This is not to let the newspapers off the hook; they are currently an unregulated bunch, commercial, censored by their own proprietors, and that’s a free press. So my expectations of them are, you have to say, lower. I think that they have obligations, I really do, but the police’s (performance) I’m upset about it.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> How would you explain police behaviour at that time?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I think there was a long history of a relationship between the press, and maybe particularly News International, and the police, in terms of leaking of information. I think it had all got terribly casual and out of hand.</p>
<p>I think that the iron triangle that was the very powerful press, the Murdoch press, their relationship with Parliament, and their relationship with MPs, and then the relationship with the police, meant that somewhere there was formed a kind of strange institutional narcissism that made them feel that they were, in some ways, above the law.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> I notice that you were subjected to two periods of surveillance. At least one of these seems to have been on the direct recommendation of News International solicitors.</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I am somewhat creeped out by the fact that these things were on order whilst I was writing what I thought were quite sensible letters.</p>
<p>Having found out about it once the scandal had emerged, it was oddly reassuring because when you are told by the other side for years that you’re wrong, that you are barking up the wrong tree, that you are simply promoting yourself, and that this has (only) got to do with celebrities.</p>
<p>And then you find out, all within the space of a few weeks, that actually it’s not celebrities only, it is victims of crime, and their families, and murdered schoolchildren, and that you weren’t wrong, and that they did know about it, and that they put you under surveillance to see what they could find to stop you from doing it.</p>
<p>It did rather prove that I wasn’t barking up the wrong tree after all.</p>
<p><strong>Rod Tiffen:</strong> Do you think civil cases from now on will become less important?</p>
<p><strong>Charlotte Harris:</strong> I think we’ve done our job.</p>
<p>I think the next thing will be what happens to the police, what happens to those who have been accused? And what happens in terms of the outcome of [the Leveson inquiry]? What will the press do next, whether they’re independently regulated or whether they continue to be self-regulated, how will they behave?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10869/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Tiffen has received ARC funding in the past.</span></em></p>
The ramifications of the UK phone hacking scandal, in which murder victims, journalists and politicians had their phones tapped, are still playing out. Last year the scandal sank the UK tabloid, The News…
Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/10679
2012-11-12T19:26:56Z
2012-11-12T19:26:56Z
BBC scandal: lessons for the ABC to learn
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17519/original/czgwjfjy-1352694289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">BBC Director-General George Entwistle has been forced to resign, plunging the public broadcaster into crisis.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the BBC considers splitting the role of its chief executive and editor-in-chief, should the ABC give serious thought to adopting a similar model?</p>
<p>The ongoing turmoil at the BBC over an ever widening child sex abuse scandal demonstrates the difficulty of the senior manager of such a large and diverse organisation being charged with taking final editorial responsibility for the stories it runs.</p>
<p>There is much for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to learn from the PR disaster engulfing its British cousin. With a roughly similar corporate structure, the ABC should closely monitor how the BBC reacts to an incorrect story that cost director general George Entwhistle <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/11/george-entwistle-resignation-newsnight-timeline">his job</a>, and move to ensure that it protects itself against a similar situation.</p>
<p>Seeking this weekend to contain the damage being done to the BBC by the Savile and McAlpine stories, Trust chairman Lord Patten <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/more-heads-will-roll-at-the-bbc-says-lord-patten-8304702.html">stated</a> that a “thorough, radical, structural overhaul” of the corporation’s management is required. </p>
<p>On a prominent BBC current affairs slot, and in the aftermath of George Entwistle’s resignation, he <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/11/lord-patten-bbc-radical-overhaul">suggested</a> that “there is a case” for separating the roles of director-general (DG) and news editor-in-chief.</p>
<p>In Monday’s Daily Telegraph veteran BBC reporter John Simpson <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9671132/Threat-to-Lord-Patten-as-BBC-chief-gets-1.3m-pay-off.html">called for</a> the creation of a new post of director-general in charge of the corporation’s journalism. </p>
<p>In this he echoes Jonathan Holmes’ <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-26/holmes-editorial-responsibility/4335140">recent piece</a> in The Drum arguing for a separation of management and editorial responsibilities at the ABC. “The editor-in-chief of a public broadcaster should not be its CEO,” Holmes wrote.</p>
<p>One can see the logic of this proposition. Had there been a layer of plausible deniability between the role of D-G and the decision-making process which led to the McAlpine story going out on November 2, it’s possible that George Entwistle would still have a job. </p>
<p>As it is, the lines of both editorial and managerial responsibility stopped with him, and he appears to have been otherwise engaged at the key moments when disaster might have been avoided. Asking a media CEO, or publisher, or managing director of an organisation employing 23,000 people to act also as editorial policeman over his or her journalists is, as this case has demonstrated beyond doubt, asking for trouble.</p>
<p>Let me make two points before considering the “separation of powers” argument.</p>
<p>First, it is important for those who value the unique role and status of the BBC not to be bounced into knee-jerk responses which may have more to do with public relations and politics than an informed understanding of what went wrong in the making of two editions of Newsnight. </p>
<p>Just as we should be wary of the view that the News Corp phone-hacking scandal justifies new rules and greater regulation of the news media as a whole, in the UK or here in Australia (as opposed to tougher application of existing laws), there must be perspective on this BBC crisis.</p>
<p>BBC News celebrates its 90th birthday this week, and for most of that time its journalistic work has been exemplary. The BBC is not regarded as a global leader in journalism for sentimental reasons, but because it has done a great job over a very long time and often under intense political pressure. </p>
<p>So let’s not draw conclusions as to the significance of this scandal before we know exactly what happened in the evolution of both stories – the true one which was spiked but shouldn’t have been, and the untrue one which should have been spiked but wasn’t. </p>
<p>Something went very wrong, yes, and executive heads are deservedly rolling, but it is too soon to say with confidence that this catastrophic failure of editorial standards was systemic rather than local, or attributable to Entwistle’s poor public defence of his actions rather than something inherent in the management structure.</p>
<p>Second, we have been here before, following the <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/2388579">Hutton Inquiry</a> into the Andrew Gilligan/“sexed-up dossier” scandal. As a result of those events, which saw the BBC pitched into fierce dispute with the New Labour government of the day, the BBC Trust in 2007 replaced the Board of Governors as an overseeing body, and with a remit to strengthen editorial control. That approach has demonstrably failed, with Lord Patten and the Trust under almost as much pressure this week as the BBC’s managers.</p>
<p>Is it now time to try again? Should editorial and corporate management functions now be legally separated at the BBC, and perhaps at the ABC too, as Holmes and others advocate?</p>
<p>Given that in this case the D-G had by his own admission responsibility for, but no operational involvement in or control over, the Newsnight editorial process, the case for separation of the two elements is strong. </p>
<p>Not having to carry that particular can might have saved not just Entwistle but the highly-regarded Greg Dyke in 2004 (also <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jan/29/bbc.davidkelly1">brought down</a> by a perceived failure of editorial control).</p>
<p>On the other hand, there is a very real sense in which the editor-in-chief role of the D-G signals the essential place of news and journalism within public service media, both in the UK and Australia. Journalism is recognised as so important to the BBC’s raison d’etre that protecting its quality must be the personal business of the very top man or woman. The BBC CEO (who has always been someone with journalistic experience) isn’t involved in the micromanagement of every story and programme strand, but does play a significant role in the handling of the bigger picture stuff where reputation and even survival are at stake. </p>
<p>Just as Rupert Murdoch as News Corp CEO can fairly be handed responsibility for the culture of phone-hacking which flourished within his UK tabloid newspapers, the BBC’s D-G cannot avoid association with the editorial standards of the organisation, nor should he be able to, even if someone else is designated editor-in-chief.</p>
<p>To break with tradition by installing a CEO who is not at the same time editor-in-chief of the corporation’s journalism would risk strengthening the very managerialism and technocracy which some – <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231325/Jeremy-Paxman-Newsnight-anchor-lambasts-incompetents-cowards-BBC.html">Jeremy Paxman for one</a> - blame for the current crisis. </p>
<p>It would downgrade and structurally isolate BBC News in the ongoing competition with a commercial sector which eyes its public service privileges with envy, and would pounce hungrily on every mistake as an excuse for ending those privileges.</p>
<p>That might not be a bad thing, if you think that privately-owned news organisations such as Sky could do just as good a job of protecting public interests as the current BBC or ABC structures. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17520/original/tzgwrdn2-1352694756.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Will the ABC take heed of the lessons from the BBC scandal and split the role of managing director and editor-in-chief?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the UK, the privately-owned ITN provides public service news to the commercial networks, and has to bid anew for its contracts every few years. Why shouldn’t BBC News be contracted out on the same basis? Or ABC News for that matter, as long as potential suppliers are prepared to play by the public service rules?</p>
<p>Before rushing into major structural overhaul, however, there must be clarity about precisely what happened in these two Newsnight investigations.</p>
<p>Was it as simple as the D-G – Thompson in 2011, Entwistle in 2012 – taking their respective eyes off the ball in two stories which by virtue of their subject – Jimmy Savile, child abuse, on BBC premises, remember - should have commanded the attention of any CEO? And if so, can new leadership restore probity and confidence?</p>
<p>Was it rogue editors and journalists working on or for the program (the role of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the McAlpine story is central)? Was it a lapse by senior managers below Entwistle to whom he might reasonably have delegated responsibility for watching over the production of material as sensitive as this – the Head of News, for example? </p>
<p>Was there straightforward incompetence, or perhaps even corruption (in relation to the spiking of the Savile package), which can be remedied by disciplinary action rather than structural change?</p>
<p>It’s too soon to tell, and thus too soon to assert that a different line of editorial responsibility, where the D-G in charge of overall corporate operations is not the same person as the editor-in-chief of news and journalism, would have avoided this drama, or at least contained it. We need to know more about the causes of this crisis before potentially laying the seeds of another.</p>
<p>The next renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter is due for 2016, and editorial management will be one of the key issues for negotiation. Plenty of time, then, to wait and see what the various inquiries into the Newsnight affair bring to light before drawing conclusions as to the next steps. </p>
<p>Whatever happens, ABC management in Sydney will be watching closely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10679/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian McNair receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>
As the BBC considers splitting the role of its chief executive and editor-in-chief, should the ABC give serious thought to adopting a similar model? The ongoing turmoil at the BBC over an ever widening…
Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/7344
2012-05-31T04:29:30Z
2012-05-31T04:29:30Z
The Leveson Inquiry: what have we learned?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11233/original/txfxjgkw-1338425657.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andy Coulson, former News of the World editor and British Prime Minister David Cameron's former Director of Communications, leaving the Leveson Inquiry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Karel Prinsloo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Andy Coulson, Former News of the World editor and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s previous Director of Communications, was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9301813/Andy-Coulson-arrested-and-charged-with-perjury.html">arrested and charged</a> with perjury last night in relation to evidence he gave in a Glasgow court in 2010.</p>
<p>Coulson’s arrest is the latest scalp claimed by ongoing investigations into phone hacking by Scotland Yard, and revelations heard at the Leveson Inquiry into the culture of the British press.</p>
<p>Just under a year ago, in July 2011, The Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-family-phone-hacking">reported</a> that a private detective called Glenn Mulcaire had been hacking teenager Milly Dowler’s phone and had been deleting messages on the phone’s voicemail in order to create space for new messages which he could then pass on to the news editors at the News of the World. This was thought to have caused her parents to have hope that she was still alive.</p>
<p>That story triggered a firestorm of revulsion and protest. It forced the creation of the <a href="http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/">Leveson Inquiry</a>, closed the News of the World, damaged the government’s credibility, forced the abandonment of News Corp’s bid for the remaining slice of BSkyB they didn’t already own, led to the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/21/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-statement">resignation</a> of the Prime Minister’s press spokesman, hung out a great deal of the news media’s dirty linen and proved – all in all - to be a cathartic moment in British public life.</p>
<h2>Lifting the lid</h2>
<p>Since it later turned out that the allegation Mulcaire deleted voicemail messages shouldn’t have been reported as fact – the police have admitted they <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8952312/Leveson-Inquiry-no-evidence-Milly-Dowlers-voicemails-deleted-by-News-of-the-World.html">just don’t know</a> – a <a href="http://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2012/05/17/leveson-inquiry-becomes-a-media-circus/">few voices</a> have been heard saying that the Leveson Inquiry is an expensive waste of time. </p>
<p>I think it’s been a good use of public money for public education and I think the issues it has exposed to the light would have caused a scandal sooner or later.</p>
<p>The inquiry has lifted the lid on media behaviour that most people don’t know about and are shocked, puzzled and appalled to hear about, and marked the end of one era of news media history. In future years, historians will mine the vast mound of evidence accumulated by Leveson because of the exceptionally rich picture it paints of a once-powerful print media brought low both by corrupted behaviour and its inability to adjust to new realities.</p>
<h2>Shining a light</h2>
<p>Leveson has also shone a bright light on some very cosy and unsavoury relationships between editors, publishers, policemen and politicians.</p>
<p>American media pundits are fond of saying that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. When it is the mainstream media being disinfected in this way, oddly enough you don’t hear journalists saying that. </p>
<p>But one of these pundits, Michael Wolff, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/23/rupert-murdoch-before-leveson-inquiry">wrote</a> just before Rupert Murdoch’s appearance at Leveson that the inquiry had “revealed no practices that any sentient person has not known existed”. </p>
<p>This is an absolutely classic example of the distorting spectacles people wear inside the media bubble.</p>
<h2>What do we know?</h2>
<p>So what has the public learned that Michael Wolff thinks every sentient person already knew?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That a lot of popular journalism “scoops” were basically cheating. A proportion of stories in some papers were got by hacking voicemails or emails and by bribing public officials.</p></li>
<li><p>The scandal was revealed by stubborn journalism which wasn’t just difficult but required stamina and nerve. A regulated broadcaster couldn’t have done it, just ask the BBC chairman.</p></li>
<li><p>News International papers had essentially infiltrated the Metropolitan Police. Resting hacks would work as PRs or consultants for the police; ex-coppers would write columns. </p></li>
<li><p>Politicians have been all too keen to give Rupert Murdoch what he wanted. Their reasons varied: they were scared of him and some of his papers, they wanted good coverage, his businesses created jobs, they agreed with his outlook. They all convinced themselves he was an irresistible force. That was how he collected, over quite a long time, more than a third of British newspaper circulation.</p></li>
<li><p>There is very little penalty for invading peoples’ privacy – and the only penalties there are have come in the last decade.</p></li>
<li><p>Not all the people who have their privacy invaded are celebrities. The inquiry has revealed an ingrained culture of casual cruelty by reporters towards families such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann">McCanns</a> and the Dowlers.</p></li>
<li><p>Self-regulation of big, national papers doesn’t work. Britain is – <a href="https://theconversation.com/self-regulation-and-a-media-we-can-trust-6466">as you know in Australia</a> – not the only country to have been pondering this issue.</p></li>
<li><p>What happened at the News of the World and The Sun had at least something to do with a feeling (illusory as it turned out) of invulnerability. The root of that was the proportion of the market owned by one company.</p></li>
</ol>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>So many different things have become mixed up here. The inquiry has been a receptacle for every complaint and resentment which has accumulated in the past 20 years – some that have nothing to do with the scandals that snuffed out the News of the World. The airing of these grievances is one of the public services such an inquiry does before it even reports and recommends. </p>
<p>If I predict what I think will happen when Leveson publishes his recommendations this autumn, it is likely that he will propose a media regulation system with a sharper set of teeth. It’s a mug’s game trying to infer a judge’s thinking from the questions he asks witnesses, but I detect some signals.</p>
<p>First, it’s likely Leveson will recommend a new regulation system that would be independent of government, but established in law so as to ensure that publishers of a certain size can’t drop out. </p>
<p>Second, something has to be done about paparazzi and harassment, preferably by this new regulator. </p>
<p>Finally, the regulator should if possible provide incentives for rules of conduct in newsrooms.</p>
<p>If this is what Leveson recommends it will be controversial. </p>
<p>But in redefining Britain’s media landscape, there needs to be a mix of accountability before the law, defence of public interest reporting and incentives for better behaviour. There are echoes of these ideas in proposals aired in Australia.</p>
<p><em>This is an edited version of a speech given at the University of Technology, Sydney and Monash University.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7344/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Brock has worked for The Times, a News International publication. He sits on the international board of the International Press Institute and his chair of the British committee.</span></em></p>
Andy Coulson, Former News of the World editor and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s previous Director of Communications, was arrested and charged with perjury last night in relation to evidence he…
George Brock, Head of Journalism, City, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/7272
2012-05-25T07:23:52Z
2012-05-25T07:23:52Z
A vice-chancellor’s defence of academic freedom
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11078/original/3qb7ryhd-1337930099.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why should freedom of the press trump the right of academics to have their say?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Linda Cronin</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been much discussion about the role of free speech and a free press since the publication last week of the report from the independent inquiry into the Australian media. The review was conducted by former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein and our colleague, Professor Matthew Ricketson.</p>
<p>Among the report’s recommendations is the establishment of a new body to oversee the media. Some regard this as an attack on freedom of the press – even freedom of speech itself. I’ll leave it to others to debate that point, but I would like to discuss another important freedom: academic freedom</p>
<p>This is an area that is important to us all at the University of Canberra and something I have had a cause to consider since the report’s findings made me the unexpected recipient of a flood of emails within the space of a few hours, robustly exercising their authors’ right to free speech.</p>
<p>To date, I have received over 70 messages as part of a concerted and often colourful campaign of free expression by people who disagree with the inquiry’s findings and believe this is somehow cause for me to dismiss our Professor of Journalism.</p>
<p>On the contrary I am proud that Professor Ricketson was appointed by the elected Australian Government to participate in a very important inquiry and I hope the rest of the University community shares this sense of pride.</p>
<p>The University of Canberra is committed to academic freedom. We staunchly defend the right of our academics to write, speak and debate ideas in their area of expertise. Just last year we stood up to legal threats by a large, influential media organisation against a lone UC academic. We will no doubt be called upon to defend academic freedom again.</p>
<p>Many of the messages in the campaign currently illuminating my in-box bear striking textual similarities to each other, suggesting there is a script somewhere to streamline the process of compiling an abusive email. (I am all for efficiency.)</p>
<p>One, however, stands out for its originality. It simultaneously bases its argument around the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and brands the UN an “international cesspit”. My correspondent describes me as a “totalitarian pipsqueak… sucking up” to my “fellow bed-wetting, tree-hugging, lickspittle lackey, totalitarian socialist running dogs in Government” in a “filthy, greedy grab for another thirty pieces of sliver (sic)”.</p>
<p>I felt certain my wife would not recognize me from such a description, but I checked with her and she largely confirmed my belief.</p>
<p>I have also been described as a “do-nothing, fourth rate academic who never earned an honest cent by delivering real value to his fellow citizens who continues to live off the teat of taxpayers, mewling and squealing about free citizens freely exercising our open society and muzzling our free speech.” (I didn’t risk checking my wife’s reaction to that.) It seems that this particular correspondent believed that I, Parker, was the author of the report. (I quite like the sound of “I, Parker”, by the way.)</p>
<p>More hurtful was the demand by a different author that the ANU immediately dismiss Matthew.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7272/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Parker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
There has been much discussion about the role of free speech and a free press since the publication last week of the report from the independent inquiry into the Australian media. The review was conducted…
Stephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of Canberra
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/6787
2012-05-02T00:05:29Z
2012-05-02T00:05:29Z
Rupert Murdoch: the amazing transformation of the Wizard of Oz
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10217/original/wmnk97mj-1335915759.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">James and Rupert Murdoch appearing before the Westminster parliamentary committee that has subsequently attacked their fitness as media proprietors.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Press Association</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Will the damning, and somewhat surprising, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/01/rupert-murdoch-not-fit-phone-hacking">verdict brought in on Rupert Murdoch by a committee of British parliamentarians</a>, spell the end of the reign of the Wizard of Oz?</p>
<p>The answer depends on what is meant by “the end”. Certainly it will be impossible for Murdoch to ever again exercise the power and influence that he has wielded over successive British prime ministers from Mrs Thatcher onwards. </p>
<p>What might be more problematic is whether “the end” also means that News Corporation, far from being able to complete their now abandoned takeover of the British broadcaster BSkyB (which has become a £1 billion a year cash cow) could in fact mean that they will be forced to divest themselves of their current holding completely?</p>
<h2>Fit and proper</h2>
<p>The answer to this conundrum lies with the <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">British broadcast regulator Ofcom</a> which is considering whether News Corporation is a “fit and proper” organisation to hold a UK broadcasting licence at all; ironically the self-same regulator whose powers Murdoch (and son) had been pressing Prime Minister David Cameron to rein in. </p>
<p>Inevitably, the MPs (majority) verdict - that Rupert Murdoch, is “not fit to run an international company” - will no doubt be ringing in the ears of the Ofcom regulators when they come to make their fateful decision.</p>
<p>And if News Corporation is forced to divest itself of the highly profitable BSkyB, Murdoch’s American-based organisation might well decide that the time has come to pull out of the UK completely.</p>
<h2>Goodbye to the UK?</h2>
<p>This would involve selling the highly profitable, but also always controversial, daily newspaper The Sun, the newly-launched Sun on Sunday (the replacement for the News of the World which Murdoch closed at the height of the phone-hacking scandal) the Sunday Times (Britain’s most profitable upmarket newspaper) and The Times, loss-making but highly prestigious.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1208&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1208&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10218/original/cfm9whd3-1335915786.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1208&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rupert Murdoch arrives to witness the first copies of The Sun on Sunday roll off the presses.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/John Stillwell</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the News Corporation board in New York, getting rid of its troublesome British holdings could look like an attractive proposition, given that in the great scheme of things, they remain small beer within the News Corporation brewery.</p>
<h2>A personal humiliation</h2>
<p>But for Rupert it would be a different matter.
Whilst he is a corporate man, and the bottom line is important to him, being forced to sell, or close his UK newspaper holdings would be wrench and an ignominious personal humiliation. For it was here, in his audacious swoops for the News of the World in 1968 and The Sun a year later, that he announced his arrival on the international media stage.</p>
<p>And even though he re-located to the US in the 80s and became a US citizen in 1985, he still retained a keen interest in his British newspapers – reputedly phoning his editors on a regular basis to praise, upbraid or just gossip.</p>
<h2>A lobby hack at heart</h2>
<p>Murdoch will find it similarly painful to decouple himself from the British political scene. For although his actual presence in the UK has been sporadic, when it he was here it was the company of politicians that he appeared to most sought out, as he revealed to the Leveson Inquiry. </p>
<p>Between 1997 and 2007 met with Tony Blair 31 times and in his first year in office he met with David Cameron on nine occasions (though Downing Street claim the real figure was six). </p>
<p>Whatever the correct number the fact remains that Murdoch was, is and will forever be a “political groupie” but as a result of the cumulative effects of the phone-hacking revelations, the Leveson Inquiry and the parliamentarians’ report, that pleasure will now undoubtedly be denied to him.</p>
<p>All of which leads to the final thought – surely it is now time for the old Wizard of Oz, to take a final bow, hang up his wand and retire gracefully behind his curtain. </p>
<p>Dream on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivor Gaber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Will the damning, and somewhat surprising, verdict brought in on Rupert Murdoch by a committee of British parliamentarians, spell the end of the reign of the Wizard of Oz? The answer depends on what is…
Ivor Gaber, Professor of Political Journalism, City, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/6731
2012-04-30T01:25:28Z
2012-04-30T01:25:28Z
The truth about Rupert Murdoch’s empire of control emerges blinking into the light
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10053/original/cxh7tpc4-1335746187.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rupert Murdoch arrives at the Leveson Inquiry in London last week.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Andy Rain/Facundo Arrizablaga</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Actor Hugh Grant said it as well as anyone in an interview with ABC News a while back. All that was needed to end the UK’s decades-long culture of tolerance for News International’s phone-hacking, its corrupt relations with the police, and its journalists’ habit of invading people’s privacy without good reason, was for <a href="http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:b87dd0b3-92ee-471d-8bdf-187c5b4b01e9">“the politicians to grow some balls”</a>. </p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch and his company got away with decades of bullying and intimidation of British politicians for one simple reason: the latter believed that his editorial support mattered to their cause, and feared to act in any way which might put that support at risk. </p>
<p>All, or nearly all politicians – allies and enemies of Murdoch alike - shared this perception, which duly became a self-fulfilling prophecy. “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It">It was the Sun wot won it</a>” for John Major in 1992, remember? Since Murdoch moved to the UK and bought up the Sun and News Of the World in the late 1960s, the stark fact was that no party had won a British general election without News International’s endorsement.</p>
<h2>Cosying up to Murdoch</h2>
<p>Rupert Murdoch was “in bed”, to use another of Grant’s phrases, with politicians of all the major UK parties, though he was a fickle lover. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Salmond: all snuggled up beneath the sheets with Murdoch and his powerful red-top titles, hoping for his endorsement and thus the opportunity to influence their millions of mainly working class readers. Some were abandoned for a younger model – Major for Blair in 1997; Brown for Cameron in 2009. Brown, alleged Murdoch at the Leveson inquiry last week, “declared war” on News International as a result. In parliament last year, Brown described News International as a “criminal organisation”. Hell hath no fury like a former prime minister scorned.</p>
<p>Last week’s revelations that the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/28/alex-salmond-murdoch-bskyb?newsfeed=true">had offered to lobby</a> UK minister Jeremy Hunt on behalf of News Corp’s bid to take complete ownership of BSkyB was surprising, and particularly interesting for me as a Scot. </p>
<p>The current high level of support for nationalism and independence in Scotland is often premised on the naïve belief that Salmond and the SNP are on the left of the political spectrum, and will come to the rescue of the country against the hated Tories as they set about dismantling the post-war welfare state (with News International’s support). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oz-american-rupert-murdoch-half-scottish/story-e6frg6so-1226339234846">Murdoch’s declaration</a> of “warm” affection for Salmond, and his support for independence, will give that particular strand of nationalism some pause for thought.</p>
<h2>“What would Rupert think?”</h2>
<p>But I digress. Salmond was only doing what most British politicians have done, seeking to curry favour with the world’s most powerful media baron. His efforts, which may derail the independence campaign now underway, are merely a footnote in the bigger narrative emerging from Leveson – that Britain was, for nearly forty years, governed with more than a nod to the desires and business interests of Mr Murdoch. “What would Rupert think?” is said to have been the question routinely asked by policy makers. </p>
<p>To get him to think well of them, they lunched, breakfasted and dinnered with the News Corp CEO and his senior executives. They rode his horses, dropped in on his yachts as they sailed the Med, employed his former editors as their communication directors in Downing Street. In Jeremy Hunt’s case, and against ministerial rules, they fed his company inside information about the progress of News Corp’s BSkyB bid. They paid homage.</p>
<h2>The reality of Rupert</h2>
<p>Until, that is, the Milly Dowler case exposed the threadbare nature of the emperor’s attire, and the politicians had their moment of clarity. Yes, it took Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan and Sienna Miller to lead the way with risky court cases, and the Guardian newspaper to doggedly pursue the story over a period of years, but Britain’s political elites finally got up the courage to distance themselves from News Corp. Since July 2011 the UK’s political culture has shifted irreversibly. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/10054/original/9ty3cngj-1335747712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler on their way to meet Prime Minister David Cameron last year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Andy Rain</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/news-corp-phone-tapping-scandal-the-empire-under-attack-792">previous piece for The Conversation</a> I compared News Corp’s political influence to the Berlin Wall and Soviet-style communism. One day it was there, the next it was gone, along with the fear of what can happen to those who criticise the empire. </p>
<p>Those politicians who allowed their policies and their offices to be shaped by that fear are now on the defensive, constructing their alibis. Some will get away with it, others will be permanently damaged.</p>
<h2>Who will be scarred by their association?</h2>
<p>Salmond, for example, says he was prepared to lobby for News Corp in order to secure “Scottish jobs”. If true – and his critics believe that his offer was made for no cause more noble than to secure the Scottish Sun’s editorial support - that’s an extraordinarily parochial and shortsighted approach to policy. </p>
<p>While most observers believed a wholly News Corp-owned BSkyB would be bad for British democracy and culture, and in the long term hugely damaging for the BBC, which the Murdochs so despise, Salmond was prepared to offer up Scotland as a bridgehead for the expansion. And to do it in secret. That is going to take some explaining. </p>
<p>In Westminster, meanwhile, Jeremy Hunt will soon be toast, and David Cameron will quite probably be next in the firing line. He it was who appointed Andy Coulson to be his communications director, <em>after</em> the phone-hacking scandal had forced his resignation as editor of the News Of The World. </p>
<p>Coulson and dozens of others await criminal prosecution because of their activities at News International, and when that happens, the prime minister who employed him as one of his most trusted advisers will be very exposed indeed.</p>
<h2>As in Britain, so in Australia?</h2>
<p>Meantime, the revelations keep on coming; a vast treasure trove of data about how media power and politics are related in a democracy such as the UK. We academics have been analysing and writing about the abuse of their power by Murdoch and his fellow barons for decades, but never with access to such intimate and detailed accounts of how they and their political supplicants have operated. </p>
<p>Now we know much more about the process, and there will be years of research work for journalism professors like me in processing and making sense of it all. We have, by happenstance and accident, reached a state of unprecedented transparency in the mechanics of the media-politics relationship. </p>
<p>This will have a profound and positive impact, not only on British democracy, but on Australia, where similar issues lurk just over the horizon. </p>
<p>Finkelstein has reported, new media regulations are promised by the ALP, and an election is not too far away, with or without Craig Thomson’s resignation from Labor.</p>
<p>Leveson has shown us how Murdoch and his political allies operate in one country. Australian eyes will now be on how his media seek to shape the coming debate in his homeland. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6731/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian McNair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Actor Hugh Grant said it as well as anyone in an interview with ABC News a while back. All that was needed to end the UK’s decades-long culture of tolerance for News International’s phone-hacking, its…
Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/5391
2012-02-17T03:59:49Z
2012-02-17T03:59:49Z
Scandal and schadenfreude in London as The Sun self-destructs
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7740/original/pvgfrv9c-1329348536.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Sun is facing a crisis of its own as revelations of police bribery emerge.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is difficult not to supress a satisfying shiver of schadenfreude as one watches the saga of the self-immolating Murdoch Empire play itself out.</p>
<p>The latest episode – breath-taking in its sheer chutzpah – involves journalists from <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/">The Sun</a> using the “hated” <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents">Human Rights Act</a> against their own employer, who they believe has compromised their integrity (such as it is) by breaching the unwritten code of maintaining the confidentiality of journalistic sources. </p>
<p>The hacks’ anger follows the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-newscorp-sun-police-idUSTRE81E1D420120215">recent arrests</a> of nine current and former Sun journalists, two police officers, a Ministry of Defence employee and a member of the armed forces – all in relation to alleged illegal payments to public officials.</p>
<p>The arrests came as a result of information passed to Scotland Yard detectives by News Corporation’s own Management and Standards Committee (MSC). The MSC was set up in July last year in response to the company’s initial failure to adequately address allegations of both phone hacking and a too-close-for-comfort relationship with the police.</p>
<p>The committee has been trawling through a reported three million emails and revelations have been emerging which suggest that, not just the now defunct News of the World, but also at the Murdoch-owned Sun, Times and Sunday Times had engaged in journalistic practices a long way from the right side of ethical behaviour.</p>
<p>Events have been gathering apace. On Monday the Sun’s Associate Editor Trevor Kavanagh, who had until now been one of Rupert Murdoch’s most staunch supporters, came out with a full-bloodied attack on the police investigation, and by implication on the MSC as well. </p>
<p>In an article headlined “<a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4124870/The-Suns-Trevor-Kavanagh-Witch-hunt-puts-us-behind-ex-Soviet-states-on-Press-freedom.html">Witch-hunt has put us behind ex-Soviet states on Press freedom</a>” Kavanagh wrote, “The Sun is not a "swamp” that needs draining.“ </p>
<p>This was seen by many observers as an attempt to stymie News Corp’s undermining of the Sun’s credibility as a precursor to closing it down (a course of action thought to be favoured by a growing number of non-executive News Corp directors in the US, who fear the continuing contamination effects of the UK press scandals on the company’s American holdings).</p>
<p>But back to the schadenfreude, which was not solely borne of Kavanagh’s disloyal indignation. For following Kavanagh’s intervention, swathes of Sun journalists were beating a path to sign up to the National Union of Journalists, an organisation de-recognised by News International after they moved newspaper production to Wapping in East London in 1986 as part of an attempt to smash the print and journalist unions.</p>
<p>The schadenfreuede was only increased when the Murdoch-owned Times gave prominence to <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/">an article</a> by left-wing lawyer Geoffrey Robertson (also originating from Australia), which called upon Sun journalists to stand up and fight for their rights against attacks from their own management in the form of the MSC investigation.</p>
<p>And all this just hours before Rupert was due to fly into London on what News International PRs assured us was a scheduled visit, and nothing whatsoever to do with the current troubles at Wapping. Nevertheless, a much-chastened Murdoch will be far from comfortable at the turn of events at his once beloved Sun. </p>
<p>The latest contribution to the schadenfreude-fest is the news that Sun journalists, second to none in the vitriol they have poured on the British Human Rights Act over the years, have now asked the National Union of Journalists if it will fund them taking their own management to court on the grounds outlined by Robertson. </p>
<p>And guess who they have asked to represent them? Robertson himself.</p>
<p>So the London courts could soon see one veteran Aussie campaigner up against another. In the words of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/columnist-322/Richard-Littlejohn.html">Richard Littlejohn</a>, one of the Sun’s most high profile columnists (until he deserted to the Daily Mail), <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/You-Couldnt-Make-Richard-Littlejohn/dp/074931978X">you couldn’t make it up</a>. </p>
<p>Unless, that is, you worked on the Sun, in which case making it up is virtually mandatory.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivor Gaber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
It is difficult not to supress a satisfying shiver of schadenfreude as one watches the saga of the self-immolating Murdoch Empire play itself out. The latest episode – breath-taking in its sheer chutzpah…
Ivor Gaber, Professor of Political Journalism, City, University of London
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/5187
2012-02-04T01:06:41Z
2012-02-04T01:06:41Z
Media moguls or corporate looters? Rinehart’s raid marks a changing of the guard
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7382/original/md5q93j3-1328313409.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What are Rinehart's real intentions?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, Kerry Stokes, John Singleton and Gina Rinehart. While Stokes and Singleton have been around media traps for a few years now, the return of a Packer, a Murdoch and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/gina-rinehart">addition of Rinehart</a> represents a changing of the guard for Australian media dynasties.</p>
<p>But this will not necessarily mean a return to a past where empires and family fortunes are entirely entwined. Perhaps, ironically, it signals the end of the dynastic age and the emergence of new corporate battles for control of media assets.</p>
<h2>Why buy?</h2>
<p>Much attention has been focused this week on Australia’s richest woman, Gina Rinehart. Her play for Fairfax Media assets and her well-known disdain for “communist” journalists are a potent mix in these post-News Of The World days.</p>
<p>There has been speculation and rumour about her motives, none of it substantiated, but all interesting.</p>
<p>I particularly like <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/02/mayne-now-is-not-the-time-for-gina-rinehart-to-be-be-saying-look-at-me/">Stephen Maynes’ theory</a> that Rinehart’s decision to raid into Fairfax was an act of hubris and rage at the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/the-iron-lady-20120116-1q1u6.html">unsympathetic portrait</a> by Jane Cadzow in Good Weekend (published by Fairfax). From published accounts this seems a typical Rinehart approach to solving a problem.</p>
<p>Others raise the possibility that Rinehart and Singleton will now join forces to create a super network of right wing shock-jockery to campaign against Labor in the 2013 election. This is an attractive theory that aligns well with the suggestion Rinehart is a fierce warrior for conservative forces in Australia. It would be easy to do as Fairfax radio assets have been in play and Singleton’s Macquarie Network is a keen buyer.</p>
<p>Then there’s my favourite theory: Rinehart will grab the Fairfax papers, leaving the rest of the company behind. She will gut the current communistic news staff and hire a bunch of young Liberal communications majors; thus turning the SMH and the Age into simulacra of The Australian’s right-wing bile factory.</p>
<p>All equally attractive propositions to Rinehart’s lovers and haters alike. There’s no doubt her actions have polarized the media landscape and created turmoil in the already fragile media asset market.</p>
<h2>Sinking ships</h2>
<p>This is an exciting spectacle and it has generated a great deal of imagining about the future of Fairfax Media, the Ten network, and many of the other major media players. Fairfax may yet be broken up under Rinehart’s assault on its share register; but it is not the only media company facing an uncertain future.</p>
<p>Let’s not forget, for example, that Nine has some rather <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3386052.htm">big bills falling due</a> and creditors are in no mood to take a bath on this expensive-to-run white elephant. Nine’s troubles began when James Packer sold out of the company to concentrate on casinos, now the equity capitalists are wondering who might bail them out.</p>
<p>Kerry Packer is gone; Rupert is hardly here anymore, and no one much under 40 would know the connection between <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/syme-david-4679">David Syme</a>, <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/fairfax-sir-warwick-oswald-12475">Warwick Fairfax</a> and dried up rivers of gold. It seems the new media saviours may yet be riding out of the rusted West, in the larger-than-life form of Rinehart and her posse of cashed-up angry miners. </p>
<p>It’s not quite the <a href="http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/eureka-stockade">Eureka Stockade</a>, but we should perhaps not underestimate the resentment in conservative circles at the perceived sins of the liberal media dominated by the elites on the eastern seaboard. </p>
<h2>Moguls in the making?</h2>
<p>She’s already “princess of the Pilbara”, but does Gina Rinehart also hold ambitions to become the “<a href="http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/rinehart-has-many-obstacles-to-becoming-princess-of-print-20120201-1qsuk.html">princess of print</a>”? </p>
<p>Some think she does, others believe her actions are purely financial. Rinehart hasn’t said anything yet, but the company she keeps only adds to the speculation.</p>
<p>Rinehart already shares the <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/board.asp?ticker=TEN:AU">Ten Holdings board table</a> with Lachlan Murdoch (he owns nearly 9% of Ten). Murdoch is also on the board of News Corp, Fox and Sky. He will have some of his father’s fortune to play with one day and could have ambitions to build his own media empire in Australia</p>
<p>Rinehart is also well acquainted with Australia’s last remaining old-style media boss, Kerry Stokes who runs the Seven Network and was also a shareholder in Ten until a few days ago (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/no-confirmation-on-reports-stokes-has-sold-his-stake-in-ten/story-fna045gd-1226257701800">apparently</a>). Stokes is a fellow Western Australian and could offer Rinehart valuable media advice.</p>
<p>Are we looking at a new set of moguls gathering force here? It seems eerily like the children of a top Chinese cadre following in the footsteps of the father.</p>
<h2>Dynasty – now in re-runs</h2>
<p>If the Rinehart story were a soap opera, Joan Collins would be cast and also Larry Hagman. Rhinestones and wealth dug out of the ground; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28TV_series%29">Dynasty</a> meets <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_%281978_TV_series%29">Dallas</a>.</p>
<p>The old media dynsasties are crumbling: many grand families who once owned the great American newspapers are reduced to ghostly collections and fading memories. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ecf98c2-4e8a-11e1-8670-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lMzGfWfM">Berlusconi</a> may yet go to jail and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16276956">Russian oligarchy</a> looks nervously down the <a href="http://www.saint-petersburg.com/virtual-tour/nevsky-prospect.asp">Nevsky prospekt</a> in St Petersburg. The current reigning global mogul, Rupert Murdoch is, metaphorically at least, on his last legs.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/kerry-packer-australias-richest-man-dies-at-68-520784.html">Packer</a> was the last family name associated with Nine and even though Fairfax Media bears the name of the founding fathers, there is currently <a href="http://mumbrella.com.au/fairfaxs-severed-ties-with-founding-family-not-a-reflection-of-poor-corporate-strategy-67012?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mumbrella+%28mUmBRELLA%29">no Fairfax representation</a> on the board and the substantial Fairfax family holding was sold out a few months ago.</p>
<p>Can we now suggest that the age of the media family dynasty may finally be over? Is the old family ties relationship between the media and owners being replaced by hard-nosed corporate types who have no sentimental attachment to news or entertainment?</p>
<h2>Who’s who in Fairfax</h2>
<p>In the context of the Rinehart putsch it is interesting to look at some other Fairfax board figures; as their public resistance may prove difficult to overcome.</p>
<p>The board is chaired by <a href="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=8626996&ticker=FXJ:AU&previousCapId=313055&previousTitle=WAL-MART%20STORES%20INC">Roger Corbett AO</a>. He is the former CEO/managing director of Woolies, which means has a <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/09/with-roger-corbett-it%E2%80%99s-a-question-of-character/">past involvement with pokies</a>. He’s a major shareholder in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/corbetts-sideline-may-well-become-a-gusher/story-e6frg9lo-1226260030677">a shale gas operation</a> in the US, and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/rinehart-pitted-against-fairfax-boss/story-e6frg996-1226260018798">opposes Rinehart</a> on the mining tax.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.xmedialab.com/mentor/greg-hywood">Greg Hywood</a> is the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Fairfax. He recently gave the <a href="http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/futurestudents/2011/11/02/a-n-smith-lecture-in-journalism-greg-hywood-talks-media/">2011 A N Smith lecture</a> in which he defended journalistic integrity at Fairfax and didn’t mention the cost-cutting he’s carried out which has resulted in more than <a href="http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/sorry-mr-hywood-you-missed-the-point-its-not-about-quality-its-about-money/">500 news-related jobs disappearing</a> over the past couple of years. </p>
<p>Hywood may claim Rinehart’s politics are an anathema to his, but he is grimly aware of the many problems at Fairfax and could probably work with her. In December last year Hywood <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/fairfaxs-digital-strategy-is-working-insists-greg-hywood/story-e6frg996-1226213614111">told The Australian</a> he was not interested in “big hairy takeovers”, but would work to restructure the company and trade out of difficulties (such as the $390 million loss in 2010).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entrepreneurship/news/article.cfm?c_id=190&objectid=10372253">Sam Morgan</a> is the Kiwi wunderkind who founded <a href="http://www.trademe.co.nz/">TradeMe</a> and sold it to Fairfax for NZ$700million in 2006. He doesn’t have a media background, but if Fairfax is restructured or broken up, he might be in the market for the New Zealand operations.</p>
<p>Linda Nicholls AO, is another professional director and it <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/orbis-australia-wont-back-fairfax-board-seat-for-australias-richest-person/story-e6frg996-1226259498017">has been suggested</a> she and Sandra McPhee would support a spot on the board for another woman. </p>
<p>More potent at the moment is the opposition coming from other institutional investors and figures not on the board. Orbis Australia fund manager Simon Marais was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/orbis-australia-wont-back-fairfax-board-seat-for-australias-richest-person/story-e6frg996-1226259498017">pretty scathing</a> of Rinehart and her reasons for wanting to join the Fairfax Board (if that’s what she wants to do). </p>
<p>He told The Australian that Rinehart’s seat on the board is not guaranteed and that he would need to be convinced it would be in the interests of shareholders. Marais also strongly defended the independence of Fairfax journalists; not something Gina Rinehart will be keen to hear much of in coming weeks.</p>
<h2>Mining for media influence</h2>
<p>Gina Rinehart has a lot to learn about being a media mogul. If she aspires to wield the influence of generations of Packers and Murdochs before her, she has a long way to go.</p>
<p>Her father’s brief foray into newspapers 50 years ago is not going to be enough training for this more difficult assignment.</p>
<p>Rinehart is now the biggest individual shareholder in Fairfax Media, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/fairfax-shares-rocket-on-rinehart-raid-20120131-1qrh7.html?skin=text-only">just ahead of the Commonwealth Bank</a> with 12.37% and in front of the next seven biggest institutional investors.</p>
<p>We will know soon if she is going to be a dynasty builder, or just a corporate raider.</p>
<p>But it’s interesting that another mining behemoth has echoed Rinehart’s sentiments about the quality of Fairfax journalism. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-03/clive-palmer-considers-turning-media-mogul/3808710">Clive Palmer told Lateline</a> this week that he would consider buying some Fairfax stock himself and really give the place a shake-up.</p>
<p>“Fairfax looks very exciting,” Mr Palmer said. “You could have an east-west play with Fairfax. Gina could come from the west and buy 15%, and we could buy 30% from the eastern side of Australia and really get the place humming again.”</p>
<p>It seems the members of the Fairfax board may well have to make some more room at the boardroom table for a new generation of mogul-magnates ready to dig up the media landscape.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5187/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. He is the author of News 2.0: Can journalism survive the Internet. He blogs at Ethical Martini.</span></em></p>
James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, Kerry Stokes, John Singleton and Gina Rinehart. While Stokes and Singleton have been around media traps for a few years now, the return of a Packer, a Murdoch and the addition…
Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/4783
2011-12-16T22:04:15Z
2011-12-16T22:04:15Z
Why The Guardian’s correction won’t change your mind about Milly Dowler
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6517/original/3ns38s6n-1324010473.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You can't believe everything you read in the papers … but you probably will.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Ian Nicholson</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>So <em>The Guardian</em> has now <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/13/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-story?newsfeed=true">retracted its earlier reports</a> that News of the World journalists had deleted Milly Dowler’s voicemails. Those journalists hacked the dead girl’s phone but they may not have deleted any messages. </p>
<p>Any genuine attempt to correct an earlier mistake is to be commended, but the question arises: will this correction change how people perceive the actions of those journalists?</p>
<p>The answer that cognitive science gives is: probably not.</p>
<p>Many Americans still don’t believe that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories">Obama was born in the US</a>.</p>
<p>Many Australians still reject the fact that <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2011/07/leaky-boat-timeline.html">no children were ever thrown overboard</a> by asylum seekers.</p>
<p>GPs in the UK and elsewhere still struggle to convince parents <a href="https://theconversation.com/muddied-waters-setting-the-record-straight-about-mmr-vaccinations-and-autism-3391">the MMR vaccination is safe</a>.</p>
<p>People seem inherently reluctant to update their memories and un-believe something they once believed, even if it turns out to be a myth. But why?</p>
<p>First of all, there are effects of people’s pre-existing beliefs and attitudes, which <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html">bias information processing</a>. People are very good at cherry-picking information that confirms their worldviews, while dismissing information that doesn’t. So to some degree people will continue to rely on misinformation if it supports their worldview, and hence their sense of identity.</p>
<p>But apart from these biases, what about lingering misinformation effects in people who don’t hold strong beliefs?</p>
<p>Psychological research has given two explanations why such misinformation persists. These explanations are not mutually exclusive but operate on different levels.</p>
<p>One goes like this: when people learn about an event, they build a mental representation of that event, containing the gist of what happened — for example, A caused B. People use this mental model to later recall the event. </p>
<p>If a key piece of information is later retracted, people are left with a gap in their model. This can be confusing: “If A never happened, how could B happen?” Not knowing what is going on, and having conflicting ideas about something, feels uncomfortable. </p>
<p>When reasoning about the event, people will therefore often use the easily available misinformation (A), even when they accurately remember its retraction. </p>
<p>In other words, people often <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/fh657142260r0411/">prefer an incorrect model of the world over an incomplete model of the world</a>. So as long as the retraction is not accompanied by a plausible alternative explanation that can fill this gap, the retraction will be rather ineffective. </p>
<p>For example, the Guardian’s retraction did not give a convincing explanation as to how Milly Dowler’s voicemails were deleted, merely suggesting they may have been deleted automatically. </p>
<p>Without a convincing alternative, people will continue to refer to the initial explanation, despite the retraction. (<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/guardian-accused-of-running-false-accusations-about-milly-dowlers-voicemails-to-sink-news-of-the-world/story-e6frf7lf-1226222789203">Other sources</a> make the automatic deletion scenario more plausible by citing the phone company’s 72-hour deletion policy, which will make the retraction more efficient. However, those sources now also <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/guardian-accused-of-running-false-accusations-about-milly-dowlers-voicemails-to-sink-news-of-the-world/story-e6frf7lf-1226222789203">seem to forget</a> that deletions aside, the journalists at News of the World <em>did</em> hack a missing school girl’s phone — thus trying to turn a partial correction into an unfounded complete exoneration.)</p>
<p>The second explanation for why misinformation lingers assumes there are two different types of memory processes: automatic and controlled. </p>
<p>Automatic memory just supplies information that is activated by whatever we are doing at a given time. This information is not always valid and hence we need a checking mechanism. </p>
<p>Controlled memory is therefore used to ensure that what is supplied by automatic memory is actually accurate and relevant to the present context (and not, for example, something we saw in a movie, something we experienced in a different context — or a piece of outdated misinformation).</p>
<p>Controlled memory processes require cognitive effort. So if we are distracted or unmotivated, they can go wrong. Controlled memory is also prone to interference, so things happening after the event will over time make it more difficult to remember exactly what really happened.</p>
<p>These cognitive processes lead to persistent effects of misinformation. Misinformation effects can be counteracted (see <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html">here</a> for some practical tips) but they are difficult to avoid.</p>
<p>In addition to these purely cognitive factors, emotional factors influencing the communication of information play a big role in maintaining incorrect information. While plausibility and believability play a certain role in whether or not information is passed on, people simply love to <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761305">pass on information that will generate an emotional reaction</a> in the recipient, in particular if it will evoke fear or disgust.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2011/dec/07/london-riots-twitter">tiger roaming the streets of London</a>, asylum seekers throwing their <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2011/07/leaky-boat-timeline.html">children overboard</a>, or journalists deleting a teenage crime victim’s voicemail—these are the kinds of myths that go viral because people love spreading them.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it is not only high-school students tweeting their friends, but also the media that disseminates misinformation. This can be due to genuine error, substandard fact-checking, <a href="https://theconversation.com/warning-your-journalism-may-contain-deception-inaccuracies-and-a-hidden-agenda-2930">a hidden agenda</a>, or simply an attempt to increase sales.</p>
<p>Fact is, once it’s out there, the damage is done.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ullrich Ecker receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from various agencies, primarily the Australian Research Council, to conduct research in the public interest. He does not hold any commercial shares or interests.</span></em></p>
So The Guardian has now retracted its earlier reports that News of the World journalists had deleted Milly Dowler’s voicemails. Those journalists hacked the dead girl’s phone but they may not have deleted…
Ullrich Ecker, Australian Postdoctoral Fellow, The University of Western Australia
Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/4357
2011-11-18T19:52:15Z
2011-11-18T19:52:15Z
Media Inquiry misses the point, as the news crisis worsens
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5664/original/INQUIRY_men_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ray Finkelstein and Matthew Ricketson look like they're leaning towards recommending a single regulatory body for all media platforms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It seems that despite their sometimes bitter commercial rivalry, the Fairfax and News Limited empires agree on one thing: the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Finkelstein Media Inquiry</a> has been a giant waste of time and money.</p>
<p>Both have produced more than one editorial slamming it as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/the-unnecessary-media-inquiry-20111106-1n1ym.html">unnecessary</a> and asking <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/what-exactly-is-the-question/story-e6frg71x-1226198254270">what its purpose is</a>.</p>
<p>Outgoing News Limited Chief Executive <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/labor-chasing-press-scapegoat-says-news-ceo-john-hartigan/story-e6frg996-1226198306659">John Hartigan</a> and current Fairfax Chief <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/success-of-a-free-press-lies-in-its-own-hands-20111116-1nizp.html">Greg Hywood</a> sang the <a href="http://theconversation.com/better-the-devil-you-know-news-limited-tells-media-inquiry-theyll-pay-more-to-the-press-council-4321">same jingle</a> during their appearances at the inquiry this week.</p>
<h2>What will the inquiry recommend?</h2>
<p>There is likely to be change to the way the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a> operates. At the moment it’s quasi-independent, but because it’s entirely funded by the two major newspaper companies and some smaller publishers, this claim of independence must be questioned.</p>
<p>It is likely that some form of “super” APC will emerge taking some over-arching role in complaints handling, with additional funding from government coffers; perhaps in spite of mild resistance from the key media companies. At the end of the day they may well agree to wear such an outcome knowing it won’t really change much in their day-to-day operations.</p>
<p>What we could end up with is something that looks like, smells like and barks like the British <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/">Press Complaints Commission</a>. This isn’t an ideal outcome and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-29/head-of-uk-press-watchdog-to-step-down/2817026">the PCC has not covered itself in glory</a> recently. It doesn’t receive any government funding, but the size of the British market perhaps suggests it doesn’t need to. What is clear from the APC’s own submissions to the inquiry and Finkelstein’s generally positive commentary, is that some subsidy from the public purse could be offered.</p>
<p>This point has generated the most heat in the discussion so far. <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-new-broom-for-news-limited-as-hartigan-exits-but-what-now-for-murdochs-empire-4236">John Hartigan</a> dismissed it outright, <a href="http://theconversation.com/better-the-devil-you-know-news-limited-tells-media-inquiry-theyll-pay-more-to-the-press-council-4321">even conceding</a> that News Limited and the other council members might have to up their own contributions to keep government “interference” at bay. The argument is that a government subsidy would mean government meddling, because it would require some statutory backing from parliament.</p>
<h2>Legislative authority</h2>
<p>Giving the APC some legislated authority would create something of a hybrid: a cross between the self-regulatory functions of the Press Council (or Complaints Commission) and the statutory regulation of broadcasters provided by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/pc=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> (ACMA). Such a body would be a break with tradition; most Western liberal democracies have historically kept self-regulation of the print media at arms length from government while heavily regulating broadcasters using the argument of “spectrum scarcity”.</p>
<p>This argument - scarce bandwidth requires tough controls - is now out-of-date and has been for sometime. What it should mean is that heavy regulation of broadcast media should be lifted, not that an attempt should be made to drag the print and online media into the fold.</p>
<p>The media inquiry was tasked with examining the issue of compliance, codes of practice and regulation in the context of digital convergence. In the logic displayed so far by Ray Finkelstein it makes sense to combine complaints handling in one body that is platform neutral. </p>
<p>The question raised again and again though, is: How do you get independents, bloggers and so-called citizen-journalists to register and be included in such a regulatory system?</p>
<p>No doubt these are questions that will be “hhhmmmmed and hhhaaaed” over in the next few months. The Inquiry’s report and recommendations are due to be put to the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review">convergence review</a> in February next year. But this focus on regulation and complaint management misses the point somewhat.</p>
<h2>Lack of diversity</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5663/original/Murdoch_pic_for_hirst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Press Complaints Commission didn’t stop the crisis at the News of the World.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/FacundoArrizabalaga</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The existence of the PCC did not prevent the UK’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-scandal-reverberates-beyond-the-murdoch-empire-2256">biggest media scandal</a> in a generation, the now notorious News of the World serial phone-hacking debacle. Streamlining the complaints procedures will not improve the quality of news or journalism.</p>
<p>Two issues of quality and diversity were mentioned at the inquiry, but have been effectively sidelined in the coverage.</p>
<p>The first is the issue of market failure and Australia’s impenetrable duopoly in print news media. While the exact figures are disputed, depending on the measure you use, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm">it is clear</a> that News Limited has a dominant position in metropolitan print markets, closely followed by Fairfax. The situation is not much different in radio, television or magazines.</p>
<p>In this environment how do we ensure a diverse range of media and opinion is available? It is difficult for new players to enter either print or broadcast markets because the cost of plant, equipment and human resources to match the two dominant entities is well into the hundreds of millions.</p>
<p>Where public interest players are in the market – <a href="http://www.cbaa.org.au/">in community radio and television</a> – the terms of their licenses are so restrictive that they exist tenuously without adequate funding or commercial income streams.</p>
<h2>Failure of the market</h2>
<p>The smug response from the big two is that anyone is free to launch an online competitor and that the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FHxpoQqPTU">“invisible hand”</a> of the marketplace will decide the outcome. What this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjvwQrZmpk&feature=related">free market myth</a> fails to take into account is that the market is a) not a level playing field because of high entry costs and the advantage of size and first mover, and b) the market itself has failed; it does not deliver the promised outcomes and, in fact, the failure of the market has contributed to the current crisis in both news business models and in a lack of public trust.</p>
<p>At the heart of this market failure is a contradiction so intense that it is almost insurmountable and unresolvable in the market’s own terms.</p>
<p>The market dictates that competition produces profits for some and losses for others. It elevates the interests of property and shareholders above the value of public interest.</p>
<p>In this context, the profit-taking behaviour of shareholders, acting in their self-interest in the marketplace, does not guarantee an effective outcome in the public interest.</p>
<p>This, I feel, also undercuts <a href="http://theconversation.com/media-inquiry-day-one-chicken-little-takes-the-floor-4209">the argument</a> from News Limited and Fairfax that the media inquiry is an attack on the news media’s right to free speech. In the marketplace of ideas, speech is not free. It takes on a commercial and commodified form and the right to freedom of the press claimed by editorialists and CEOs, is effectively a property right. As such, it is not available to everyone. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, apart from <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/former-federal-court-judge-ray-finkelstein-qc-begins-media-inquiry/story-e6frg996-1226188468768">my own modest contribution</a> on the first morning of the inquiry in Melbourne last week, these ideas have not been canvassed. Perhaps <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-18/holmes-winners-all-round-as-news-ltd-face-media-inquiry/3678792">Stuart Littlemore came closest on Thursday</a> when he talked about the festering culture inside some newsrooms to explain how some reporters and editors appear to take perverse delight in venal attacks on certain targets.</p>
<h2>Addressing the crisis</h2>
<p>There is evidence that the current model is broken and, as senior Fairfax news executive Peter Fray said in his <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/sydney_ideas/documents/Peter_Fray_Decade_Fellow_lecture_16Nov_2011.pdf">Sydney University lecture</a> earlier this week, journalism has failed us. He rightly argued that journalists are guilty of group-think and are seduced by public relations.</p>
<p>The question that was not asked, let alone answered, amid all the bluster and talk of reform attending the Media Inquiry is: What to do about the crisis in news and journalism?</p>
<p>Peter Fray has offered one solid suggestion: “What I am saying is that we need to become more sophisticated and radical about the way we talk about journalism and its roles.”</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more, but when sophisticated and radical ideas were raised in front of <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/independent_media_inquiry_biographies">the professor and the judge</a> last week, they were howled down by <a href="http://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/thank-you-for-your-comment-now-piss-off/">a chorus of acrid abuse</a> from those who are charged with living up to the ideals that their bosses espouse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance. He was the first witness called at the government's media inquiry during public hearings in Melbourne last week.</span></em></p>
It seems that despite their sometimes bitter commercial rivalry, the Fairfax and News Limited empires agree on one thing: the Finkelstein Media Inquiry has been a giant waste of time and money. Both have…
Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/4236
2011-11-10T04:28:44Z
2011-11-10T04:28:44Z
A new broom for News Limited as Hartigan exits, but what now for Murdoch’s empire?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5396/original/Murdoch_Hartigan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Murdoch is taking more control of his Australian interests now John Hartigan is gone.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Rob Hutchison</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Was <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/john-hartigan-first-and-always-a-journalist/story-e6frfkvr-1226190752999">John Hartigan</a> pushed or did he leave his position as CEO of News Limited just in time? It’s likely that only a handful of people know the real answer to this question; among them will be “Harto” and the boss himself, Rupert Murdoch. </p>
<p>Anyone who’s followed the fortunes and misfortunes of News Corporation will know that when Rupert’s in town things can change in an instant. Several of his former editors, including <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/i-asked-about-ethics-and-rupert-called-me-a-wanker-20110709-1h7tj.html">Bruce Guthrie</a>, have recounted how fear and loathing would presage Murdoch senior’s arrival like a cold, damp fog. His reputation for brutal and decisive firings, executive shuffling and bursts of temper is well known.</p>
<p>But it could be that Hartigan has simply walked after 41 years of climbing through the ranks to become a hardened executive with ink running through his veins. As we hungrily pick through the entrails of a career replete with many highs and lows, perhaps it is the recent lows that offer the most clues to Rupert’s thinking and to Harto’s state of mind in the last few weeks of his tenure as chief head-kicker for Murdoch’s Australian operation.</p>
<p>Hartigan was known as an old-style “newspaper man” who inspired equal measures of loyalty and terrified acquiescence among his colleagues and employees. Some, like Bruce Guthrie, have felt both sides of Hartigan’s personality; one moment your star is rising, the next you are shown the door and showered with the boss’s strong language. He was never one to back away from an argument either and in recent years he has, maybe, picked a few too many fights that News Limited may not ultimately win.</p>
<h2>Controversial reign</h2>
<p>On his watch News Limited was caught up in the Melbourne Storm ARL <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/secret-seven-storm-stars-payments-under-the-microscope-20100424-tked.html">salary cap scandal</a> that cost the club two premierships. As this debacle was playing out, Hartigan <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/brian-waldron-the-chief-rat-says-john-hartigan/story-e6frg6nf-1225859060036">labeled</a> Storm CEO Brian Waldron “the chief rat,” which at the time seemed to be a case of blame-shifting. Rob Moodie, former Storm chairman and public health expert, <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/storm-row-news-has-the-ethics-of-big-tobacco-20100720-10jj3.html">later said</a> News Limited’s tactics and approach to ethics mirrored that of the big tobacco companies. </p>
<p>News Limited’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/black-and-blue-knight-20110514-1enhq.html">well publicised stoush</a> with Victoria’s <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-wasnt-pushed-says-overland-of-resignation-20110616-1g4oe.html">most senior police officers</a> is still unravelling and some threads are pointing to the Herald and Weekly Times. Heads are rolling in ministerial offices and the Victorian government is in damage control as the stink spreads. Questions have been raised about close and unethical ties between senior police, politicians and News Limited journalists.</p>
<p>The Federal Court’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/andrew-bolt-racism-and-the-internet-3626">finding</a> in September that star Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt <a href="http://theconversation.com/bolt-loses-in-court-but-will-public-condemnation-follow-3597">breached</a> the Racial Discrimination Act in two 2009 articles about “light-skinned” Aborigines was an embarrassment to the paper which, after much bluster in its opinion pages decided not to appeal the court’s order that it publish prominent apologies.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/afp-split-with-victoria-police-on-terror-raid-plans/story-e6frgczx-1226186223449">current court case</a> involving allegations that a senior Victorian police officer leaked information on a terror raid to The Australian’s Cameron Stewart is also causing headaches for News. </p>
<p>When former Herald Sun editor Bruce Guthrie <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/14/guthrie-wins-out-in-unfair-dismissal-case-judge-slams-harto-blunden/">successfully sued</a> the company for unfair dismissal in the Victorian Supreme Court, Hartigan gave evidence and the judge was unimpressed. In his decision Justice Kaye <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/tough-hartigan-gets-some-good-press-20111109-1n7ht.html">said</a> of Hartigan: “I do not accept the evidence given by Mr Hartigan in this respect. In my view, Mr Hartigan was an unreliable witness in respect of the negotiations which preceded the formation of the contract.”</p>
<p>No one is suggesting that John Hartigan is to blame for all these problems, but as chairman of the board and CEO, he must shoulder some of the responsibility. Certainly he has been working hard to repair News’ reputation. <a href="http://theconversation.com/">The Conversation</a> understands from sources inside News that Hartigan wanted to retire last year, but agreed to stay on to deal with the Australian response to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. </p>
<p>Now, while things are getting <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/murdoch-media-crisis">progressively worse</a> for News International in the UK, it seems that the Australian operation has a clean bill of health. At least there is nothing untoward that has yet surfaced in the public discussion; so perhaps there really is “nothing to see here”. </p>
<h2>The corporate successor</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5397/original/Kim_Williams.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kim Williams’ business acumen is respected by Murdoch. For now.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracy Nearmy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Whatever the ultimate reason for Hartigan leaving, perhaps equally surprising is the choice of replacement as News Limited CEO. The former <a href="http://www.foxtel.com.au/default.htm">Foxtel</a> chief <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-10/news-ltd-new-boss-tells-politicians-to-harden-up/3656420">Kim Williams</a> now has the top job and many are seeing this as a break with tradition. Williams is said to enjoy a good relationship with Rupert Murdoch – but most do, until the dinner, or the phone call, or the boardroom coup which ends their career. The former bureaucrat has already signalled he’ll step up for his boss. Less than 24 hours into the top job he told politicians to “harden up”, already creating controversy. Maybe he’s as tough as Harto, but he’s not from a print background and has never worked as a journalist. Murdoch obviously admires his business acumen though; Williams has turned around Foxtel in the decade or so he’s been there.</p>
<p>He’ll have a challenge on his hands. The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3358595.htm">well-canvassed debacle</a> of awarding the coveted <a href="http://australianetwork.com/">Australia Network</a> contract – a two horse race between the ABC and News Limited’s Sky Australia – has been further delayed amid investigations of leaks and allegations of ministerial interference in the tender process. </p>
<p>On the upside, one could see the shift from inky-fingered tough-guy to the smoother and urbane television executive as a process of generational change and renewal inside News Limited. Williams is respected in the industry and, like his boss, is <a href="http://www.foxtel.com.au/about-foxtel/ceo-speeches/foxtel-ceo-kim-williams-speaks-at-the-australian-broadcastin-117765.htm">regularly on the speaking circuit</a> where he spruiks Foxtel, but also makes considered interventions into the debate about the future of digital media, television and the news industry. If his brief is to make News Limited into a truly convergent media player, he just might be the right person for the right job at the right time.</p>
<h2>Chairman Murdoch</h2>
<p>On the other hand, it is difficult to know what to make of Murdoch’s decision to <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Rupert-Murdoch-becomes-News-Ltd-chairman-pd20111109-NF8KN?OpenDocument&src=hp3">resume the chairmanship</a> of News: perhaps it signals his desire to be more “hands-on” in the Australian operation. It is difficult to see how he’s going to manage this given the number of bottom-line threatening battles News Corporation is fighting in the UK and in the USA. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/business/murdoch-discount-in-news-corp-stock.html">Some estimates suggest</a> that News Corporation’s global value of $US 41 billion could be a lot higher – closer to to $US 60 billion without Rupert in charge. On the other hand, the decision could be yet more hubris from the octogenarian who recently had the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-newscorp-idUSTRE76H07P20110719">“most humble” day</a> of his long and rich life. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the days of newspapers dominating the News Corporation balance sheet are over and that the digital wave has crested for the Murdoch empire.</p>
<p>Rupert has been a leading figure promoting a convergent future for newspapers for nearly a decade. He has made many speeches about the need for the print industry to give up on trees and embrace tablets. He is a pioneer in erecting paywalls, but with <a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-10/europe/30013136_1_circulation-paper-british-election">mixed success</a>.
Now The Australian is leading the way in general newspapers <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/news-ltd-elaborates-on-paywall-details/story-e6frg996-1226170411734">putting up the paywall</a> in Australia. It is far too early to tell if this is going to be successful, but I took out a cross-platform subscription because News Limited is almost giving away its six-day print edition for $7.95 a week.</p>
<h2>Future of newspapers</h2>
<p>The death of newspapers within 10 years has been predicted. I’m not so confident this is right. They are steadily adapting: News is breaking on the web, that’s obvious, and there’s competition from what I call “user-generated news-like” content (blogs, citizen journalism, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/">YouTube</a> and social media like <a href="http://www.twitter.com">Twitter</a>); but print newspapers still have a role. The Australian has – for better, or worse - become a “viewspaper” rather than a “newspaper”. While this may be attractive to the bottom line, it has not endeared Murdoch or his senior news executives to <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/alp">ALP</a> politicians.</p>
<p>News Limited’s conservative commentators have collectively condemned the government’s <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry">Media Inquiry</a> as a “witch-hunt” against the Murdoch press in Australia. I don’t think it is a witch-hunt, but the inquiry will achieve very little. The Gillard government has neither the stomach, nor the inclination, to embrace the more ridiculous suggestions of licencing newspaper owners and journalists.</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch didn’t take an opportunity to face the inquiry this week. It would have been a media circus and highly entertaining for the small crowd in the public gallery. Perhaps he thought it was pointless and he may have been right. It certainly would have opened another front in a war of position that has seen many battles erupt in the last couple of years; some of which Murdoch must be quietly wondering if he can still win. Harto’s last “hurrah” may be his scheduled appearance before <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry/independent_media_inquiry_biographies">the judge and the professor</a> next week in Sydney.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4236/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance</span></em></p>
Was John Hartigan pushed or did he leave his position as CEO of News Limited just in time? It’s likely that only a handful of people know the real answer to this question; among them will be “Harto” and…
Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/3425
2011-09-18T20:37:09Z
2011-09-18T20:37:09Z
Media ownership matters: why politicians need to take on proprietors
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3658/original/Ownership_pics_for_Pusey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Murdoch crisis in the UK raises many questions about media ownership in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/William West</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Gillard Government’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/broad-terms-for-media-inquiry-but-what-about-ownership-3369">media inquiry</a> is to disregard the crucial issues of bias and concentration of media ownership, despite Bob Brown’s demands for wider terms of reference. This is, at best, misled.</p>
<p>The Murdoch News of the World <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-scandal-reverberates-beyond-the-murdoch-empire-2256">phone hacking scandal</a> in Britain has brought to light many disgusting and wilfully illegal abuses of personal privacy. </p>
<p>It points also to the scale of the corrupting power that media proprietors can have on good governance and liberal democracy. </p>
<h2>Concentrated ownership</h2>
<p>We have reason to worry. It is well known that <a href="http://www.commarts.uws.edu.au/gmjau/v4_2010_1/dwyer_martin_RA.html">Australia has one of the highest concentrations</a> of media ownership in the world. Liberal, “<a href="http://australianpolitics.com/media/fourth-estate.shtml">fourth estate</a>” standards of journalistic independence and diversity of opinion are essential conditions for informed citizenship and freedom of speech and hence for the proper functioning of a democracy. By those standards Australia compares poorly with most other developed <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3746,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD nations</a>.</p>
<p>The Australian situation has much to do with the historic domination of the Australian media by the three media dynasties of <a href="http://www.smartcompany.com.au/kerry-packer.html">Packer</a>, <a href="http://www.fairfax.com.au/">Fairfax</a> and <a href="http://www.newscorp.com/">Murdoch</a>. </p>
<p>All three have at various times asserted their private commercial and political interests strongly, and used their influence in ways that flouted journalistic and editorial independence. </p>
<h2>Public broadcasting</h2>
<p>The weakness of “watchdog”, “fourth estate” controls on the privately owned broadcasting and print media has been exacerbated by the comparatively low funding of Australian public service broadcasters and their low share of the television viewing audience. </p>
<p>This did not, however, prevent the conservative <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/ABC.htm">Howard Government’s attacks</a> on both the critical independence and funding of public broadcasting in Australia. Paid advertising was forced on the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/rewind/2006/06/28/1151174209418.html?page=fullpage">SBS TV network in 1991</a>. </p>
<p>And no one should doubt that an Abbott government would deliver still greater power to the private media proprietors, restart the culture wars and renew attempts to starve, hobble or privatise the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/">ABC</a>.</p>
<h2>Monitoring the media</h2>
<p>The professionalisation of journalism came relatively late to Australia and commercial broadcast journalism functions here with minimal regulation for accuracy and impartiality. </p>
<p>In the early 1990s, Hawke government reforms replaced the existing requirement that a broadcasting licensee be a “<a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/15/push-for-oz-media-probe/">fit and proper person</a>” with ownership and control limits and handed much responsibility for the quality of content, including the development of codes of practice, to the broadcasters themselves. </p>
<p>That allowed our notorious shock-jock talkback radio kings to become a law unto themselves to a point where Justice Woods <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=150678">noted</a> eleven years ago on a public action against broadcaster 2UE that John Laws was “too famous to be put in jail”. </p>
<p>The effect has been to encourage hate speech, scapegoating, and blind politics among some of the most powerless sections of the population. </p>
<h2>Standards not ownership</h2>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum the once reputable Murdoch-owned <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/">Australian</a> speaks only for top end business interests. </p>
<p>The print and broadcast media now routinely offer platforms for the views of right wing think tanks funded with undisclosed contributions from corporations, such as the <a href="http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/">Sydney Institute</a>, the <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/">Institute for Public Affairs</a> and the <a href="http://www.cis.org.au/">Centre for Independent Studies.</a></p>
<p>Successive governments have taken the cowardly way of avoiding vexing the media proprietors with needed public interest regulations on quality, content, journalistic standards and editorial independence. </p>
<p>Instead they have attempted to fix the problem with rules designed to promote diversity of ownership. </p>
<h2>Flawed rules</h2>
<p>The most recent round of <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2006A00129">legislative changes in 2006</a> on cross-media ownership prohibit an individual from controlling more than two media out of radio, TV and newspapers in a license area. </p>
<p>But what <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/mia/2011-issues#140">our most recent studies</a> have shown is that rules were deeply flawed and have led not to less concentration but rather to more.</p>
<p>Between 2003 and 2010, while the number of licensed commercial broadcasting services increased from 306 to 317, the number of controllers of these licenses fell, from to 42 to 39. </p>
<p>The number of newspapers monitored by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a> did not change, while the number of controlling organisations fell from 13 to 8. </p>
<p>These rules have increased incentives for large media companies to centralize their news and current affairs with costs to both quality and regional focus.</p>
<h2>Weakened governments, powerful proprietors</h2>
<p>Some may object that these are merely the precious concerns only of a progressive middle class (about 25 per cent of voters), or worse, as the think tank hit men would have it, more noise from “the Balmain basket weavers”, “chattering classes” and “the doctors wives”. Wrong! </p>
<p>Our analysis of successive waves of the <a href="http://aussa.anu.edu.au/">ANU Australian Survey of Social Attitudes</a> shows that more than 70 percent of Australians believe that the big media proprietors have too much power and that the ownership of the media is too concentrated. </p>
<p>The same surveys show that people care much more about good governance, civic engagement, and public provision than is commonly believed.</p>
<p>Many factors have contributed to the increasing paucity of our news and current affairs. A general tendency for people to retreat from the public world into entertainment is but one of them. The inherent and the often wearing complexity of political and policy problems is another. </p>
<p>But none of this can hide that the deterioration is a direct consequence of a larger 25 year long policy of micro-economic reform that has steadily weakened the role of government and preferred, one-sidedly, to advantage private interests against public interests and the interests of the consumer over those of the citizen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3425/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The findings reported here appear in the latest issue of Media International Australia. The research was conducted by Dr Marion McCutcheon of the Swinburne Institute and Professor Michael Pusey of the University of New South Wales and supported by the Australian Research Council.
</span></em></p>
The Gillard Government’s media inquiry is to disregard the crucial issues of bias and concentration of media ownership, despite Bob Brown’s demands for wider terms of reference. This is, at best, misled…
Michael Pusey, Professor in School of Social Sciences and International Studies, UNSW Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/3398
2011-09-15T04:34:33Z
2011-09-15T04:34:33Z
Independent media inquiry: self-regulation key to freedom of press
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3606/original/Mastheads.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C30%2C3285%2C1807&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Self-regulation of newspapers can lead to a conflict of interest.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/William West</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Gillard Government has announced it will <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2011/254">hold an inquiry</a> into the state of the Australian print media.</p>
<p>One of the key elements investigated will be the role of the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>, the self-regulatory body that currently governs the industry.</p>
<p>While we will have to wait six months until the inquiry concludes, it is reasonable to expect that its conveners - former Federal Court judge <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/reformer-and-keen-inquirer-link-up/story-e6frg996-1226137272789">Ray Finkelstein</a> and University of Canberra academic <a href="http://www.canberra.edu.au/faculties/arts-design/staff/journalism/profiles/matthew-ricketson">Matthew Ricketson</a> - will return findings with significant impact for the Press Council.</p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with RMIT journalism lecturer Josie Vine about how the Press Council operates and its evolution in Australia.</p>
<h2>Is the Press Council really a toothless tiger as many critics allege?</h2>
<p>It depends how you look at it. The way I teach journalism is as a set of cultural values and beliefs and those cultural values and beliefs align very much with the Press Council’s <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/">Statement of Principles</a>.</p>
<p>First and foremost is freedom of expression being a right of everybody in this country and in democracies all over the world. That is how we function. In order to maintain freedom of expression we do have responsibilities and if we don’t behave ourselves as journalists as the public expects, then somebody else will walk in regulate the industry for us.</p>
<h2>How did the Press Council come about? </h2>
<p>It was set up by newspaper proprietors back in the 80s when the government was proposing to regulate the media. They offered to set up this self-regulatory body called the Australian Press Council, and the government agreed to it.</p>
<h2>What flaws does the Press Council model of self-regulation have?</h2>
<p>It can’t really enforce any type of punishment. But again if you look at journalism as a group of people with common values and beliefs they are the same values and beliefs as the Press Council: accurate reporting, transparency, honesty, that kind of thing.</p>
<p>The other problem is that it just covers newspapers and that is an issue in the online environment because newspapers are broadcasting just as much as television and radio is broadcasting.</p>
<p>It also can’t actually act on any indiscretions unless a member of the public makes a complaint. </p>
<h2>Do certain media organisations have the ability to influence the Press Council’s operations?</h2>
<p>Therein lies the problem of self-regulation generally. It is a conflict of interest. If you are going to publish that you have made some type of indiscretion which is usually the punishment for newspapers, they have to be able to be willing to do that.</p>
<p>That publishing of indiscretions, might only be a tiny item on the back of page four that people won’t even notice when the indiscretion might have been a huge front page news item.</p>
<p>It is certainly not a perfect system and I think if the owners or owner decided they didn’t want to play ball with the Press Council then it would all fall to pieces but Mr Murdoch, <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/murdoch-media-crisis">facing the trials he has</a> of late, is little more sensitive to self–regulation these days.</p>
<h2>Are there examples elsewhere in the world of press regulation that we could learn from?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/">Press Complaints Commission</a> in Britain I think has shown itself to be fairly weak, particularly in the <a href="http://theconversation.com/news-of-the-world-scandal-reverberates-beyond-the-murdoch-empire-2256">News of the World type situation</a> where regulation and government has had to step in and I think that is the biggest challenge for us as a self-regulatory system in that if we don’t regulate ourselves, somebody else will.</p>
<p>We have got to be very careful to behave ourselves in a manner that is expected while also juggling with freedom of expression and freedom of speech. The last thing we want is for somebody to walk in and regulate us because then that is it, forget the idea of freedom of the press.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3398/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Josephine Vine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
The Gillard Government has announced it will hold an inquiry into the state of the Australian print media. One of the key elements investigated will be the role of the Australian Press Council, the self-regulatory…
Josephine Vine, Lecturer, RMIT University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/3028
2011-09-01T09:26:39Z
2011-09-01T09:26:39Z
The hidden media powers that undermine democracy
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/3286/original/Blair_Gillard.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Blair pulled back the curtain on the relationship between journalists and politicians..</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">MEDIA & DEMOCRACY</a>: On the final day of The Conversation’s series on how the media influences the way our representatives develop policy, John Keane examines how the relationships between politicians, journalists, lobbyists and the PR sector undermine democracy.</strong></em></p>
<p>When recently ploughing through <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/009192555X/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0751530824&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1FR15N17Y0X8A27HMVED">Tony Blair’s autobiography</a>, I hit a rare rock of truth. On the last night of the second millennium, when the government’s extravaganza spectacles were faring badly, Blair recalls with special horror his discovery that a pack of top journalists invited to attend the midnight Millennium Dome celebrations had been left stranded at a London underground station clogged with New Year’s Eve revellers. </p>
<p>Blair tells how he grabbed the lapels of the minister in charge, his old friend and flatmate Lord “Charlie” Falconer. “Please, please, dear God”, says Blair, “please tell me you didn’t have the media coming here by tube from Stratford just like ordinary members of the public”. Lord Falconer replies: “Well, we thought it would be more democratic that way.” Blair responds: “Democratic? What fool thought that? They’re the media, for Christ’s sake. They write about the people, they don’t want to be treated like them.” Falconer: “Well, what did you want us to do, get them all a stretch limo?” Thundered Blair: “Yes, Charlie, with the boy or girl of their choice and as much champagne as they can drink.”</p>
<h2>Trickery and charm </h2>
<p>In recent months, thanks to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nickdavies">Nick Davies</a> and other brave journalists in hot pursuit of the hidden secrets of Rupert Murdoch’s empire, we’ve learned more about efforts by key media players and top politicians like the British Prime Minister David Cameron to trick and charm the pants off each other. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/murdoch-media-crisis">The Murdoch scandal</a> has revealed more than a few fragments of a world not normally covered by journalists, or seen with naked public eyes: a world that’s potentially dangerous for democracy called mediacracy.</p>
<p>The pun’s more than just a pun. It refers to the tangled webs of back-channel contacts and hidden power relations connecting senior politicians and top journalists, helped along by public relations agencies, lobbyists and other figures of public contrivance. </p>
<p>Although there is little clear-headed analysis of its shadowy contours, mediacracy has been gaining ground for some time in virtually all democracies. In Cameron’s Britain and Obama’s United States, just as in Gillard’s Australia and Berlusconi’s Italy, undercover skills of media management and heavily manipulated, aggressively sensationalist and fast-changing publicity cycles in politics have become routine.</p>
<h2>How did mediacracy happen?</h2>
<p>We could say that all popularly elected governments are today proactively engaged in clever, cunning struggles to kidnap their clients and citizens mentally through the manipulation of appearances, with the help of accredited journalists and other public relations curators. The age of organised political contrivance is upon us. How and why has this happened? </p>
<p>Conspiracy theories are unhelpful. Functionalist explanations are closer to the mark. Put bluntly, mediacracy is a democratic phenomenon. After all, within any given representative democracy politicians, professional journalists and citizens depend upon each other. </p>
<p>Audiences of citizens need journalists to get close to politicians and governing officials so that they can check their words against their deeds, to probe whether or not they are bullshitting, to help judge their competence as leaders. </p>
<p>For reasons of reputation and career advancement, journalists also need direct access to politicians and governments. Scoops, breaking news and lead stories are a must in the curriculum vitae of every established or upwardly mobile journalist. </p>
<p>But journalists need politicians and governing officials for other reasons, including the raw material that is constantly needed to fill space and programming holes. The tactic of making constant “announcements” (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/sideshow-syndrome-eroding-democracy/story-e6frg6z6-1226046757528">as Lindsay Tanner has pointed out</a>) becomes something of a governing imperative, a method that is usually much-welcomed by news-hungry journalists because it fills voids, plugs gaps, provides copy that generates public attention. </p>
<h2>The dalliance</h2>
<p>From the other side of the divide, politicians need journalists to get their messages across to citizens. </p>
<p>Journalists are vital translators and communicators of their words and deeds to audiences of citizens. They attract and hold the attention of busy people, helping them to understand what politicians are saying and doing. They can of course do politicians a big favour by helping convince citizens that their representatives are doing an excellent job, sometimes (as during political honeymoon periods) by singing lullabies to citizens who, for a time, politically sleepwalk their way through daily life. </p>
<p>Or journalists can function as early warning detectors, even as triggers of political scandals with the power to unseat individual representatives, or to bring whole governments crashing to the ground.</p>
<p>That’s the theory of journalism and democracy, seen from a functionalist perspective. </p>
<p>In practice, the dalliance of journalists and high-level politics is always contingent. Synergy and symbiosis are not their “natural” fate. Hard work and constant “informal” priming from both sides is required. Journalists and politicians drink and dine together. They bump into each other at gatherings, in shopping malls, airports and school grounds, and at formal functions. They frisk and frolic and keep in touch; sometimes they share beds. Their working habits coincide. They think about similar things and talk to the same people, often in tight circles of friends, sources, advisors, colleagues and former colleagues. </p>
<p>And journalists and politicians do inside baseball (as Americans say) with an often bizarre assortment of inside players. </p>
<h2>Finding favour</h2>
<p>There are companies such as <a href="http://www.greenbergresearch.com/">Greenberg Quinlan Rosner</a>, the leading political consultancy firm in the world with major clients on its list that include Coca-Cola, Verizon, Tony Blair and the ALP. </p>
<p>There are public relations agents, many of whom are ex-journalists, armed with promises of planting “positive” stories on behalf of their clients, or shielding them from “negative” coverage. </p>
<p>Not to be overlooked are large lobby firms such as <a href="http://www.hillandknowlton.com.au/">Hill and Knowlton</a>, the <a href="http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/kenneth-m-duberstein/b4571">Duberstein Group</a> and <a href="http://www.pattonboggs.com/">Patton Boggs</a>; and there are think tanks, whose PR role normally far outweighs any independent thinking that supposedly happens inside their office walls. </p>
<p>Helped along by such players, accredited journalists and politicians, when unacquainted, make beelines for each other, in search of mutual favours, usually under the cover of discretion and silence. Sweetheart deals are struck. Press releases are exchanged, digested, recycled. Dissenting voices are ex-communicated, pushed out through the revolving doors. Misfits are advised of the penalties, such as social and professional ostracism, for wandering too far off message, from the cosy fold. </p>
<p>This is the point where mediacracy takes root. For that to happen, institutional regulations, or their absence, are always required. Their shaping powers are vital in making or breaking a mediacracy. </p>
<h2>Shaping the message</h2>
<p>The White House Press Corps in the United States and the Westminster “lobby” in the United Kingdom are exemplars of these shaping institutions. The Canberra Press Gallery and the <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/">Australian Press Council</a>, the 22-member self-regulatory representative body of print media, are local versions of the same arrangements, whose effect is to stand guard over the revolving doors and closed circuits of information that connect journalism and high-level politics. </p>
<p>Sometimes the dalliance results in iron-clad oligarchy, as in the Japanese system of press clubs (<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811102001339">kisha kurabu</a>), an 800-strong countrywide network of journalists who as members of their exclusive clubs enjoy privileged access not just to politicians but also to government ministries, political parties, businesses, the Tokyo Stock Exchange and even the imperial household. </p>
<p>The kisha system reminds us of another compelling reason why mediacracy flourishes: its beneficiaries quickly sense that they have an interest in preserving their own privileges, hence they do everything to hang on to their power, even if that means sacrificing personal integrity, investigative reporting and other conventional standards of high-quality journalism. </p>
<p>When that dynamic sets in, journalists undermine their own authority. Publics disbelieve them; journalists are judged to be dissemblers, careless confabulators and liars. </p>
<h2>Mediacracy’s impact on democracy</h2>
<p>Politicians suffer a similar fate, which prompts in turn a fundamental political question: on balance, all things considered, why exactly is mediacracy, seemingly a democratic phenomenon, bad for democracy?</p>
<p>The worrying thing is that answers to this question are weighed down by worn-out clichés. While everybody agrees that the contours of today’s democracies are heavily mediated and manipulated by newspapers, radio, television and the internet, critics of mediacracy, <a href="http://pressthink.org/bio/">Jay Rosen</a> for instance, typically fall back on such stock phrases as the “informed citizen” and calls for a new politics and journalism based on “reality” and “facts”. </p>
<p>If only things were so simple. </p>
<p>Correspondence theories of truth and “reality” were long ago discredited philosophically; any thinking person knows that “truth” has many faces, as <a href="http://www.kafka-franz.com/kafka-Biography.htm">Kafka</a> said. </p>
<p>The problem with mediacracy is not that it suppresses “true” pictures of “reality” that should otherwise be plain for all to see; it is that mediacracy hinders the circulation of other, different, equally plausible pictures of reality that are so vital for making meaningful judgements about the great complexity of the world around us. </p>
<h2>The elitist ideal of the informed citizen</h2>
<p>As for <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/">Rousseau</a>-esque appeals to engaged citizens whose heads are stuffed with unlimited quantities of “information” about a “reality” that they’re on top of: that’s an utterly implausible and – yes – anti-democratic ideal which dates from the late nineteenth century. Favoured originally by those who stood for a restricted educated franchise and who rejected partisan politics grounded in the vagaries and injustices of everyday social life, the ideal of the “informed citizen” was elitist. It still is. </p>
<p>In the age of monitory democracy, appeals to “reality journalism” and the “informed citizen” are both outdated and too timid. What’s needed, for the sake of democracy against mediacracy, are new arguments for open systems of communication and the free flow of different points of view.</p>
<h2>Producing mediocrity</h2>
<p>So here, in conclusion, is one possibility: the reason why mediacracy is bad for democracy is that it stifles what ancient Greek democrats called bold, courageous speech (parrhēsia) aimed at the powerful. But what’s so good about fearless “wild thinking” and untamed conjectures that are unwedded to slavish talk of “reality” and “truth”, we can ask? </p>
<p>There’s one possible answer: in matters of public life and politics, fearless sense-making reports about the world are the best weapon we have for countering the risks and dangers of folly and arrogance, bossing and bullying. </p>
<p>From the point of view of courageous journalism, mediacracy is meekness and mediocrity. In matters of government, it is malfeasance and malefaction. </p>
<h2>Wise citizens</h2>
<p>Democracy is by contrast an unending experiment in taming hazardous concentrations of power. It needs wise citizens: experienced citizens who know they don’t know everything, and who suspect those who think they do, especially when they try to camouflage their arrogant will to power over others. </p>
<p>Here’s the rub: the whole prickly issue of journalists and governments as bedfellows is vitally important for democracies simply because know-alls who wield power normally protect their flanks by means of deception. </p>
<p>That’s why their chastening through continuous public scrutiny is imperative. And why, where it exists, mediacracy must be broken up, initially through public enquiries unafraid of tackling tough questions, such as whether bodies such as press councils should include a popularly elected component as well as representatives of new, independent media platforms, who themselves deserve public funding. </p>
<p>By enabling the production of communication with spine, democracy is a way of humbling the powerful, rendering them publicly accountable to citizens and their representatives, sometimes by forcing them to own up, or even to step down. </p>
<p>If this sounds implausible, perhaps we should ask for the opinions of the individuals who lost everything to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/madoff-jailed-after-pleading-guilty/story-e6frg90f-1111119119325">Bernard Madoff</a>, or those who were hacked by Murdoch’s journalists. Or the citizens of Tokyo <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366578/Japan-nuclear-emergency-US-Surgeon-General-warns-prepared-radiation.html">forced recently to stock up</a> on facemasks, potassium iodide tablets and Geiger counters. Or the Iraqis, Libyans and Palestinians whose lives have been damaged by war. And our own indigenous people. </p>
<p>What might all these good citizens, in their own different voices, say about mediacracy and its fickle effects?</p>
<p><em><strong>This is the final part of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">Media and Democracy</a> series. To read the other instalments, follow the links here:.</strong></em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">Selling climate uncertainty: misinformation in the media</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-fantasy-politics-advertising-is-no-substitute-for-debate-3039">Forget the fantasy politics - advertising is no substitute for debate </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/democracy-is-dead-long-live-political-marketing-2666">Democracy is dead, long live political marketing</a></strong> </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-the-political-message-what-makes-a-good-advert-2156">Selling the political message: what makes a good advert?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644">Drowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642">Event Horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406">Spinning it: the power and influence of the government advisor</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/cops-robbers-and-shock-jocks-the-media-and-criminal-justice-policy-2961">Cops, robbers and shock jocks: the media and criminal justice policy</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639">Bad tidings: reporting on sea level rise in Australia is all washed up</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/big-money-politics-why-we-need-third-party-regulation-2516">Big money politics: why we need third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/power-imbalance-why-we-dont-need-more-third-party-regulation-2304">Power imbalance: why we don’t need more third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-vs-farmers-how-the-media-threw-the-climate-debate-off-balance-2434">Scientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/warning-your-journalism-may-contain-deception-inaccuracies-and-a-hidden-agenda-2930">Warning: Your journalism may contain deception, inaccuracies and a hidden agenda</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-hidden-media-powers-that-undermine-democracy-3028">The hidden media powers that undermine democracy</a></strong></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/3028/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Keane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
MEDIA & DEMOCRACY: On the final day of The Conversation’s series on how the media influences the way our representatives develop policy, John Keane examines how the relationships between politicians…
John Keane, Professor of Politics, University of Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2687
2011-08-05T04:44:52Z
2011-08-05T04:44:52Z
More than just a Q&A – the Australian media needs to ask itself tougher questions
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2661/original/st_bernard.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The media needs to ask itself some tricky questions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">st bernard</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Debates have raged in the media in the aftermath of recent events in News Ltd UK. </p>
<p>Curtailing the freedom of the press; the ethics of methods used to source stories; quality of media reporting; and the 70% media ownership in Australia by one player are among the front runners, with vigorous takes on pros and cons from different stakeholders. </p>
<p>On this weeks’ <em><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3277551.htm">Q&A</a></em>, among the various perspectives offered by panelists, there were two which are worth mentioning. </p>
<p>The first was the argument that investigating the media, while appearing warranted, might actually lead to curbing freedom of the press for the entire industry, curtailing possible illegitimate methods to gain materials for stories to bring down those in power. </p>
<p>The other argument was that media misdemeanours are the public’s fault, as they have an insatiable need to know what’s happening instantly and constantly. </p>
<p>Both arguments are overgeneralised, simplistic and ignore other significant factors which need to be explored in depth. </p>
<p>Does having freedom in the media mean that it can act unlawfully to fulfil a legitimate purpose? </p>
<p>Does freedom mean the media can abdicate responsibility given its position of power? </p>
<p>What is the core purpose of the press and, for that matter, journalism? </p>
<p>Is this purpose ultimately influenced by the bottom line: media organisations selling news? </p>
<p>Does media have a part to play in building “virtuous” societies?</p>
<p>The above considerations go beyond the concern of what measures can be implemented to clamp down on the media industry. </p>
<p>While focusing on the current situation, they more importantly seek the possibility of a sustainable foundation for a long-term relationship between the public and those who inform them – a relationship of trust, credibility and respect. </p>
<p>An argument that positions the public as consumers of media is short-sighted in saying that Australians are happy with any type of news, regardless of journalistic integrity. </p>
<p>Is Australia really a hedonistic society hungering for a news fix? </p>
<p>I would like to think that we are interested in being informed through media that practice rigour in sourcing and evaluating information. </p>
<p>But this prerequisite for critical thinking must not only be the criteria of ethically sustainable media organisations, it must also apply in the public’s constant evaluation of what they are told by the media. </p>
<p>Do we question why we are being told what we are told by the media? </p>
<p>Are we concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, a balanced argument and open-mindedness? </p>
<p>Media that values critical thinking, professional honesty and integrity, and an ethically sustainable relationship with all of its stakeholders plays a role that goes beyond just providing the news. </p>
<p>In pursuing goals which create meaningful sense-making for society, the media can be the voice of the people. It can lead society to pursue complex goals that are meaningful to the individual. </p>
<p>In the wake of a possible new reality, or to enhance what is current, let’s begin a much broader discussion including asking Australian media leaders about the authentic purpose of their organisation.</p>
<p>How do they perceive their role in Australian society and how do they uphold that vision? </p>
<p>What do we want to see in our media organisations, and how can we work together to build a relationship that mutually empowers and moves Australia forward as a nation?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2687/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Diann Rodgers-Healey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Debates have raged in the media in the aftermath of recent events in News Ltd UK. Curtailing the freedom of the press; the ethics of methods used to source stories; quality of media reporting; and the…
Diann Rodgers-Healey, Adjunct Professor, James Cook University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2444
2011-07-25T21:09:49Z
2011-07-25T21:09:49Z
The danger of equating freedom of speech with ‘freedom of the press’
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2471/original/PIC_-_Nolan_Murdoch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd owns 70 per cent of Australia's daily print media</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>While “Murdochgate” rolls on, the question of what it means for Australia has inevitably been attracting considerable attention.</p>
<p>In this discussion, News Ltd itself has played a leading role. For those with an interest in the Australian media, watching the developing local response to the crisis has been fascinating. </p>
<p>In its wake, CEO John Hartigan publicly stated his confidence no comparable wrongdoing had taken place in Australia, whilst committing to a review of all editorial expenditure over the last three years.</p>
<p>This can be criticised, of course, given that the failure of such internal enquiry has become massively apparent in the UK. Yet there is no reason to believe this inquiry will be a sham – particularly given the potential risks this might bring.</p>
<p>Rather, Hartigan’s response represented a pre-emptive strike in the inevitable debate about whether and how to regulate the Australian press. He sought to demonstrate both that News Ltd can be trusted and that self-regulation works. Notably, his letter also praised the current Press Council, expressing support for stronger ethical codes, guidelines and complaint handling. “Look”, he tells us, “the system works, and we’ll make it work better still”.</p>
<p>The next day, Bob Brown called for a public inquiry into media regulation, noting that while “TV and radio broadcasting requires a licence, there is no licensing or independent oversight of major newspapers”. This generated a more aggressive response, particularly in The Australian.</p>
<p>The weekend edition carried the (on-message) headlines “News of the World Scandal Wouldn’t Happen Here” and “Press Council on the case of casual attitude to ethics”. On Monday, this was followed by “News Licences Just Fine for Stalin’s Russia”. Again praising the Press Council, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/newspaper-licences-just-fine-for-stalins-russia/story-e6frg996-1226096378131">this article</a> argued that “the last thing that should come out of this awful business is a de facto licensing system for newspapers”. Similarly, the government’s proposed privacy laws have been represented as a potential threat to “freedom of the press”.</p>
<p>In this debate, concepts of “free speech”, “independence” and “freedom of the press” have quickly surfaced and been used as synonyms. However, there are dangers in such conflation.</p>
<p>Here, a consideration of the UK case is instructive. There, the Press Complaints Commission, the British counterpart to the Press Council, will almost certainly be a casualty of the hacking scandal, having <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjAyOA==">dismissed</a> reports that phone hacking was far more widespread than News International claimed. David Cameron publicly stated that “the way the press is regulated today is not working”, that the PCC had “failed” and is “ineffective and lacking in rigour”.</p>
<p>These sentiments echo the long-standing criticisms of the <a href="http://www.cpbf.org.uk/">Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom</a>, an organisation notably concerned to promote freedom for journalists, which they see as threatened by self-regulation. They have been particularly critical of the PCC, arguing that its shortcomings stem from its lack of independence from the newspaper industry, and inadequate mechanisms for enforcing high standards.</p>
<p>Notably, many of the criticisms levelled at the PCC also apply to the Australian Press Council. As an industry-funded body whose remit includes defending freedom of the press, it has been seen as compromised. Where upheld, adjudications about press reporting come long after the initial wrong, and usually have far less prominence. Beyond this, the Press Council has no power to fine or use other means to effectively discipline newspapers in cases of ethical breaches. </p>
<p>Arguments against more effective press regulation can also appear dubious. In <em>The Conversation</em>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-free-society-doesnt-license-newspapers-turnbull-2355">Malcolm Turnbull</a> argues that the reason broadcasters are licensed while newspapers aren’t is because they are using public spectrum. He claims that licensing newspapers would also mean the necessity of licensing websites, which would suppress free speech.</p>
<p>This is misleading. Broadcast regulation partially developed out of technological necessity, but was also strongly informed by concerns regarding the potential influence of broadcast media. Unlike the press, it also developed at a time when far more widespread concerns about the power of mass media had become prevalent.</p>
<p>While not all of these were warranted, the suggestion regulation is unnecessary because the press are less influential is questionable. In Australia, the press remain the pre-eminent medium that sets the political agenda. While emergent web-based media are important, their significance pales in comparison. In a country where News Ltd controls 70% of newspapers, the issue of media power remains a significant concern, as illustrated by the current campaign against carbon pricing being conducted by some outlets.</p>
<p>Suggesting licensing equates to governmental manipulation is as suspect as claims it must be “one size fits all”. Are Australian broadcasters outlets really state mouthpieces? Australia’s most trusted journalism outlet, the ABC, is also its most regulated (though governmental attempts to discipline the ABC also highlight the need for media outside the public sector). Yet there may also be other models of regulation worth exploring, such as <a href="http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/07/11/press-regulation-and-the-impending-death-of-the-pcc/">this recent contribution</a> from the UK blogosphere.</p>
<p>Against suggestions it couldn’t happen in Australia some, such as <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/natalie-fenton/murdochgate-and-news-we-need-to-reframe-media-and-public-interest">Natalie Fenton</a>, have argued that the UK hacking scandal was a direct result of the pressures brought upon commercial media by the rise of global competition and declining newspaper profits, from which Australia is hardly immune. We shouldn’t wait for a parallel crisis before considering more effective regulation.</p>
<p>The problem that remains, for both journalists and the public, was well captured by A J Liebling: Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. </p>
<p>Ensuring free speech and democratic journalism, nevertheless, remains a more important goal. While I have little confidence that, beyond privacy regulation, we are likely to see substantial change in Australia, we should have a more serious conversation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Nolan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
While “Murdochgate” rolls on, the question of what it means for Australia has inevitably been attracting considerable attention. In this discussion, News Ltd itself has played a leading role. For those…
David Nolan, Senior Lecturer - Media and Communications, The University of Melbourne
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2459
2011-07-25T21:08:34Z
2011-07-25T21:08:34Z
Heat may spread to News Corp’s home
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2451/original/newcorphq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">News Corp's decision to move from Australia to the US may have now put it in the firing line.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>News Corporation’s 2004 decision to domicile in the US state of Delaware has up to now been highly favourable to the Murdochs. </p>
<p>But News Corp may ultimately come to regret its decision as the unfolding corporate crisis which began in Britain threatens to spread to its US heart. </p>
<p>Institutional shareholder, Amalgamated Bank of New York, which announced in March it would sue News Corp directors, has recently amended its pleadings in the case, accusing News Corp of a “culture-run-amok” with directors failing to provide effective review or oversight. </p>
<p>The FBI is investigating claims that the News of the World may have hacked the phones of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. </p>
<p>And former New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has publicly encouraged the Justice Department to prosecute News Corp under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, on the basis that News Corp is “an American business incorporated in Delaware and listed on American financial exchanges”. </p>
<p>Until 2004, this was not the case. The News Corp empire had for decades been based in Australia. News Corp’s move to the United States was both controversial and fundamental to Rupert Murdoch’s continuing control over News Corp. </p>
<p>The original reincorporation proposal prompted a revolt by a number of institutional investors, who complained the move would strengthen the managerial power of the family and reduce shareholder rights. </p>
<p>The institutional investors were particularly concerned that Delaware provided a more hospitable terrain than Australia for a range of control enhancement mechanisms, such as staggered boards, <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dualclassstock.asp">dual class stock</a> and anti-takeover mechanisms, including the controversial <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/poisonpill.asp">“poison pill”</a>. </p>
<p>There are indeed many significant, but under-appreciated, differences between US corporate law and the law of other common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, that affect the balance of power between shareholders and the board of directors. </p>
<p>Delaware law is considerably more deferential and protective to management interests than Australian corporate law, under which shareholders possess stronger rights.</p>
<p>At the time of the announcement of the proposed relocation to the United States, News Corp’s institutional investors sought a range of corporate governance concessions which would provide them with greater shareholder protection and participatory rights than existed under Delaware law. </p>
<p>News Corp, which initially refused to meet their demands, was ultimately brought to the bargaining table when a major US proxy adviser, ISS, entered the debate. This threatened to undermine the success of the planned restructure, since the relevant schemes of arrangement implementing the move to Delaware required shareholder consent, with Murdoch family interests voting as a separate class.</p>
<p>News Corp’s concessions to the institutional investors appeared at face value to be significant in providing shareholder protection. Some financial press commentators greeted them as a major victory for the institutional investors and for shareholder democracy at the time. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, News Corp was able to neutralise or subvert the effectiveness of many of these concessions, using a variety of techniques that included the waiver of certain listing rules by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), and the unilateral amendment by News Corp of a board policy limiting the directors’ power to implement poison pills. </p>
<p>The ultimate effect of the News Corp reincorporation saga was to subvert shareholder rights and increase centralised managerial power.</p>
<p>News Corp’s action in altering its board policy concerning poison pills was particularly contentious. It led to litigation by a consortium of institutional investors against News Corp for breach of contract. </p>
<p>In the 2005 case of UniSuper Ltd v News Corp, which ultimately settled, Chancellor Chandler of the Delaware Chancery Court stated that: “News Corp thus finds itself in a stew of its own making”.</p>
<p>Now, the business world is riveted by another corporate governance stew within the News Corp group.</p>
<p>But many of the issues at the heart of News Corp’s move to the US resonate in the unfolding crisis today. </p>
<p>At last it is likely we will see enhanced scrutiny of corporate governance matters within the group, including the level of independence of the directors and the effectiveness of the board as a monitor.</p>
<p>It is also important for News Corp to consider separating Rupert Murdoch’s roles as CEO and chairman. Finally there will be renewed pressure on News Corp to tackle the conflicts of interest and related party transactions with Murdoch family interests, as well the incentives offered by executive remuneration within the group.</p>
<p>And last but not least, succession arrangements.</p>
<p><em>Jennifer Hill’s article, “Subverting Shareholder Rights: Lessons from News Corp.’s Migration to Delaware” (2010) 63 Vanderbilt Law Review 1, which discusses in detail News Corp.’s reincorporation in Delaware, is available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1541644.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2459/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Hill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
News Corporation’s 2004 decision to domicile in the US state of Delaware has up to now been highly favourable to the Murdochs. But News Corp may ultimately come to regret its decision as the unfolding…
Jennifer Hill, Professor of Corporate Law at Sydney Law School , University of Sydney
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2368
2011-07-21T21:17:23Z
2011-07-21T21:17:23Z
The perils of trying to regulate for ethical behaviour
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2425/original/PIC_-_Murdoch_Maguire_pic.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rupert Murdoch holding a copy of The Times, a News International paper</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In little more than two weeks, the long simmering issue of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking">illegal phone hacking</a> at News Corporation’s British newspaper News of the World has developed into a cascading crisis, with fatal results for the top selling Sunday newspaper, its staff and the careers of elite UK power brokers.</p>
<p>Initially focused on one newspaper and its regional parent company, it has claimed the careers of senior media and police executives, doggedly threatens to knock on the door of 10 Downing Street and also to make a trans-Atlantic leap to News’s U.S. entities.</p>
<p>But that’s only what we read in the papers and see on TV. The illegal practices involved go to the heart of personal and journalistic ethics, the right to privacy, and the abuse and neglect of power.</p>
<p>Under the surface, there has been an endemic corrosion of ethics, honor and propriety such that no amount of inquiries by parliament, government or the judiciary can measure the perverse degrees to which it has become a part of media’s DNA.</p>
<p>The illegal hacking practices revealed in recent weeks to be more widespread than originally thought have been contained by tangible evidence (11,000 pages of it) to the now defunct paper but are effecting, unfairly but through implied guilt by association, thousands of other highly professional journalists and dozens of news gathering units in the News Corp group.</p>
<p>Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron – socially and professionally connected to many of the main players – has been dragged by invigorated opposition leader Ed Millibrand and public horror over the extent, insensitivity and blatant media abuse to launch a multi-faceted investigation into media practices, newspaper regulation, cross-media ownership and the relationship between press and politicians.</p>
<p>On one hand, the imbroglio has already led to a major house-cleaning exercise in News Corp’s UK newspaper business and that is clearly a good thing with Rupert and James Murdoch left to count the cost of near fatal damage to their local organization and possibly its global outreaches.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it has rudely pushed three of the four major estates in the cradle of Western democracy – parliament (1st Estate), executive government (2nd), and media (4th) – to forensically examine what over recent decades since Margaret Thatcher’s reign has been an inter-dependent, chummy, self-serving and needy relationship.</p>
<p>During the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009 – uncovered by Britain’s Daily Telegraph - it was widely commented that the UK public got the politicians it deserves. The question now needs to be asked whether it also has the media it deserves, one that trashes reputations, including, ironically, its own, and thinks nothing of the cruel effects on broken lives.</p>
<p>The evidence of wrong doing at News of the World is incontrovertible and a sad reflection on its journalistic culture and business and management practices that allowed it to thrive. It’s well and good to hear the series of mea culpas uttered by James and Rupert Murdoch through public pronouncements and in testimony to the UK parliament’s culture select committee.</p>
<p>But while this period of chaos continues to deliver surprises and the watchdogs of Fleet Street monitor the big dog squirming, what does it mean in the long term for media practices and journalists’ relationships with politicians?
Politicians and the press are fated to be continually locked in a love-hate relationship with “information” the commodity they covet and trade under cover of the more exalted Western democracy ideal of serving the people.</p>
<p>It is difficult for any media to hand-on-heart guarantee that its newsgathering style is completely free of corrupt practice. In today’s competitive media market, news outlets face a dilemma between reporting in the public interest or reporting anything that might interest the public.</p>
<p>Just as in Britain, Australia’s media and politicians engage in the time-honored art of badgering and abuse and it is no surprise to see Prime Minister Gillard and Greens’ leader Bob Brown reading the anti-News Corp mood and jumping on the bandwagon to call for media ownership inquiries.</p>
<p>But it is not in the public interest for opportunistic parliamentarians to set about rebalancing their control over the press, no matter how timely it may seem. Rigorous public debate through the media is a sign of democracy at work and any imposed restrictions on its ability to report will be to the public’s detriment.</p>
<p>A shackled press is anathema to a free society and no more perfect example is The Guardian’s forensic pursuit of the illegal practices of News of the World journalists when the police had closed the case. And little more than two years ago, the media’s uncovering of the MP expenses scandal showed up an earlier cohort of lawmakers to be lawbreakers. So it works both ways.</p>
<p>Just as in times of crisis, such as 9/11, nuclear accidents, tsunamis and earthquakes, the public counts on the media to make sense of chaos. Professional media outlets in the UK are making sense of the corruption of one of their own and how far it has affected other arms of society.</p>
<p>In the bigger picture of a globalised media, the News of the World crisis is a mighty wake-up call to the minority of lax and corruptible journalists and the politicians and police they sup with. While journalists must be left free to go about their business, institutions such as their employers and the public need to rigorously police their practices to reflect community standards.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2368/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Maguire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
In little more than two weeks, the long simmering issue of illegal phone hacking at News Corporation’s British newspaper News of the World has developed into a cascading crisis, with fatal results for…
David Maguire, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Management, Murdoch University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2418
2011-07-21T21:17:14Z
2011-07-21T21:17:14Z
Corporate governance 101: the buck stops with Rupert Murdoch
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2424/original/ruperthearing.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As both CEO and chair of News Corp, Murdoch must accept blame for his employees' behaviour.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>News Corporation shareholders would have been justifiably disturbed when James and Rupert Murdoch told this week’s UK parliamentary committee hearing that they could not be held responsible for the behaviour that led to the scandal currently engulfing their company.</p>
<p>As anybody with a basic understanding of corporate governance will tell you, the buck ultimately stops with with the chairman and chief executive. </p>
<p>Just because Murdoch Snr was not made aware of the claims of wrongdoing early, as both the chairman and chief executive of News Corp he is ultimately responsible. He and his board of directors are there to serve the company’s shareholders, while acting in accordance with all legal and regulatory standards and diligently applying risk management. </p>
<p>Responsibility for the governance and culture of a corporate reside with the board and chair. They must delegate responsibilities to management, but also ensure that management is accountable to them. </p>
<p>But while Rupert and the board can delegate tasks to management but they cannot delegate their own accountabilities. They may be shocked by the behaviour of those who worked for their company, but their governance role means they have to provide monitoring and oversight of management. </p>
<p>Their responsibilities also entail putting in place effective internal controls and ethical codes of conduct, as well as monitoring the effectiveness of such policies and procedures. </p>
<p>The role of the chair and the board is to ask the right questions – too often in cases such as these, complex corporate structures are used to justify why information does not travel up the management chain. </p>
<p>Directors can never know as management about the day-to-management of a company, but they select executives to do the job and fire them, or force them to resign, when they do not.</p>
<p>Too often directors are concerned with their own reputation once the crisis comes to the attention of the public, with little attention paid to procedures that prevent the crisis occurring in the first place. </p>
<p>The duty of the chair and board is to monitor senior management continually, and Rupert and his board have a duty of loyalty to shareholders and a duty of care in making decisions. </p>
<p>They must discover necessary information and consider all alternatives. Why did they not make sure they had all the information as the scandal unfolded? Why weren’t the right questions asked? </p>
<p>Unless directors and managers are engaging in practices that are negligent or self-dealing, they will generally not be targets of civil or criminal court proceedings against their company. </p>
<p>But in this case, negligence and criminal proceedings could be seen to demonstrate poor business judgement and render Rupert’s role difficult to maintain in the future. </p>
<p>The News Corporation board must put in place effective succession planning for the CEO and not leave it to the Murdoch to decide on a departure date for himself. </p>
<p>His dual CEO-chair role seems to have led to a situation where the board may have failed to question senior management staff and provide independent oversight. </p>
<p>In cases such as this, where there are dual CEO-chair roles the management/governance role becomes murky. Who takes on the responsibility to monitor Rupert in his role as CEO? The chair, who is again Rupert. The directors’ passivity seems incongruous in the circumstances. </p>
<p>As for James in his role as a senior manager, he is accountable to the board. His management role makes him responsible for actions of the company and his admission of paying out-of-court settlements has been seen by many as leaving leave him susceptible to prosecution. As the procession of management resignations continues, James may be left exposed. </p>
<p>Rupert and James may seem to be weathering the storm, but it is up to the board to exercise its responsibilities to ensure the culture is set from the top and governance is strengthened through asking the right questions about behaviour and management practices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2418/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
News Corporation shareholders would have been justifiably disturbed when James and Rupert Murdoch told this week’s UK parliamentary committee hearing that they could not be held responsible for the behaviour…
Suzanne Young, Director of Corporate Responsibility, Faculty of Law and Management, La Trobe University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.