Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[Valmy]

These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.

And that is not really the issue.  Breaking the law in any sort of journalism to get a story is, you know, breaking the law.

[Neil]

These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.

And that is not really the issue.  Breaking the law in any sort of journalism to get a story is, you know, breaking the law.

Indeed.  And lawbreakers should be punished, especially if they are journalists.

[Martinus]

The bitch has resigned. 

[Brazen]

They'd better get Piers Morgan too 

[Richard Hakluyt]

I thought we'd managed to export Piers to the states?

[Brazen]

These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.

And that is not really the issue.  Breaking the law in any sort of journalism to get a story is, you know, breaking the law.

Indeed.  And lawbreakers should be punished, especially if they are journalists.

Journalistic codes often clash with the law and form a legal grey area. From a rather good article on the subject:

The codes of journalism appear to be very clear. The UK National Union of Journalists took the initiative in drawing up a code of ethics in 1936 and it is the bedrock of the language of the code of practice set down by the Press Complaints Commission. Article 7 of the NUJ rulebook states: "A journalist shall protect confidential sources of information." The obligation brooks no qualification. The duty is deontological. In philosophical terms this means that not protecting the source is always wrong.

The PCC code is also categorical. Article 15 on confidential sources states: "Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information." As with the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution, the confidentiality rule does not explain how it should be applied in different contexts. Nor does it allow any public interest exception to its clause on confidentiality. The NUJ code permits transgressions on the basis of the public interest. This includes "preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation" and "exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office".

British law on journalists' sources is teleological or morally consequentialist. In other words, the absolute rule is compromised, and as a result journalism is vulnerable to the attentions of the judicial balancing exercise. Section 10 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act states: "No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."

The Guardian's then editor Peter Preston paid a heavy price for thinking in 1984 that this would be legal protection for the story his paper had published on the arrival of Cruise missiles at Greenham Common. The source had been civil servant Sarah Tisdall, who had anonymously leaked a document. The codes did not provide specific guidance on the obligation to unknown sources for sensitive documents. But British journalism learned a horrible lesson.

[Ed Anger]

I thought we'd managed to export Piers to the states?

[Iormlund]

What kind of chilling effect is this going to have on investigative journalism - to the extent that even exists anymore?

Probably the same chilling effect it would have on bribery.

Not sure about that.  It wasnt until recently that investigative reporters were lauded for doing whatever was necessary to break the big story.  Now Marti is quite right that the papers in question are tabloids but to what extent are genuine investigative reporters going to make sure they do not cross lines of acceptability in pursuit of stories were there is a genuine public interest.

Seems like an easy enough divide to me. Investigating if a politician is diverting funds is clearly in the public interest. Whether his kids have cystic fibrosis is definitely not.
A journo that releases the first story should be commended, his sources protected. The second should end with everyone involved behind bars.

[The Brain]

Maybe I should write a nuclear engineer code and try to gain support for considering it to be on the same level as law.

[Sheilbh]

Finally, and I never thought I'd say this,but Millipede has actually looked competent, even actually quite impressive.

This has been the biggest shock of the week. 

They'd better get Piers Morgan too   

Cannot wait

I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time.  Does anyone have a good idea why's Les Hinton gone and does that affect the US operations?

Edit:  Also I love this 2011 trend of octogenarian nepotists watching their empire's collapse.  I've seen several Arab writers note that Murdoch's sacked his PM, re-shuffled his cabinet, bungled his first address ('we've made minor mistakes').  Next he'll blame foreign interference and al-Qaeda I think...

[mongers]

Finally, and I never thought I'd say this,but Millipede has actually looked competent, even actually quite impressive.

This has been the biggest shock of the week. 

They'd better get Piers Morgan too   

Cannot wait

I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time.  Does anyone have a good idea why's Les Hinton gone and does that affect the US operations?

Edit:  Also I love this 2011 trend of octogenarian nepotists watching their empire's collapse.  I've seen several Arab writers note that Murdoch's sacked his PM, re-shuffled his cabinet, bungled his first address ('we've made minor mistakes').  Next he'll blame foreign interference and al-Qaeda I think...

I like the comparison.

[grumbler]

Well journalists will frequently refuse to answer questions under oath in order to "protect their sources", when such priviledge is given little to no legal protection.

And they frequently go to jail for it, as lawbreakers.  I can see journalists deciding to pay the penalty for breaking the law as a matter of rational self-interest.  But that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.

[jimmy olsen]

Wow! Heads are starting to roll.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/les-hinton-rupert-murdoch

Les Hinton resigns from News Corp

Hinton, who has worked for Murdoch for over 50 years, told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign


    Lisa O'Carroll
    guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 July 2011 21.34 BST
   
Rupert Murdoch's righthand man Les Hinton has resigned in the latest shock development of a saga still threatening to engulf the newspaper and TV mogul's empire.

Hinton, who has worked for the media baron for more than 50 years, told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign.

"It is a deeply, deeply sad day for me.

"When I left News International in December 2007, I believed that the rotten element at the News of the World had been eliminated.

"That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant," he wrote in a letter to staff adding: "I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp."

Hinton headed Murdoch's British newspaper arm, News International, when the phone-hacking allegations first arose.

His resignation comes just hours after his successor in the UK, Rebekah Brooks, fell on her sword as Murdoch made attempts to draw a line under the scandal.

Hinton had come under increasing scrutiny recently as a cascade of allegations indicated the problems at the centre of the scandal were more widespread than he had twice led a parliamentary committee to believe.

In 2007 and 2009, he told a select committee that the company had carried out a full investigation into the matter and was convinced just one of its journalists was involved.

Murdoch said: "Les and I have been on a remarkable journey together for more than 52 years. That this passage has come to an unexpected end, professionally, not personally, is a matter of much sadness to me."

Hinton was parachuted into New York in 2007 after Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal and tasked with transforming the paper into the "Financial Times of America".

A trusted and discreet lieutenant of Murdoch's, he said in a statement that he had "watched with sorrow from New York as the News of the World story unfolded".

"The pain caused to innocent people is unimaginable. That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant and in the circumstances I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp and apologise to those hurt by the actions of News of the World."

He added that "his testimonies" before the culture, media and sport select committee "were given honestly".

At the heart of the scandal were News International's claims that the phone-tapping was the work of a "rogue reporter" - royal reporter Clive Goodman.

In his statement, Hinton says at the time he believed that to be the case.

"When I appeared before the committee in March 2007, I expressed the belief that Clive Goodman had acted alone, but made clear our investigation was continuing. In September 2009, I told the committee there had never been any evidence delivered to me that suggested the conduct had spread beyond one journalist.

"If others had evidence that wrongdoing went further, I was not told about it."

Hinton has spent his entire career working for Murdoch, beginning as a reporter at the Adelaide News and rising through the ranks until he was tapped to run News International in 1995 – and later Dow Jones – which made him responsible for the News of the World during the years when the phone hacking took place.

Tall, trim and debonair, with rimless glasses and waves of silver hair, Hinton has a reputation for being level-headed and insightful, and has won praise for balancing out some of the stormier personalities within including Murdoch himself.

"He runs interference for Rupert," said one source who knows both men. "He's a very nice guy – congenial, easy going and smart."

Hinton lives in an elegant townhouse – fitted out with a jacuzzi and a deck – on Manhattan's upper east side with his wife, Kath, a former aide to Gordon Brown.

He started his career as a teenager checking copy at Murdoch's first paper, the Adelaide News in Australia. Among his duties were fetching the boss's lunch.

Rising through the ranks until he was tapped to run News International, he was equally at home with the celebrity culture of the tabloids as he was with spreadsheets and boardroom power-plays.

He was liked by staff, particularly by journalists who felt he understood their trade, but he rarely courted publicity. His motto was: "The lower your profile, the longer your longevity in Rupert's court."

It was with reluctance the 67-year-old executive went to the US in 2007. He was given little choice by Murdoch, who rewards loyalty handsomely.

As Murdoch crossed the globe over the next 50 years acquiring newspapers and TV stations, Hinton was never far away.

"Rupert would not be where he is today if he had not recognised talent," Boston Herald publisher Patrick Purcell said in introducing Hinton, an old friend, before a speech to an executive club in March.

Hinton replied: "If Rupert Murdoch asked me to get his lunch," he quipped in his speech, "I still will."

[Martinus]

I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time.

I thought so too but then noticed that Guardian originally accused NotW of the very thing in 2009. We are just seeing a climax of a long process.

[jimmy olsen]

I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time.

I thought so too but then noticed that Guardian originally accused NotW of the very thing in 2009. We are just seeing a climax of a long process.

Apparently Scotland Yard had all the evidence but was sitting on it. Only after the Guardian dug up more and put it on the front page did they do anything with it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43781013/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/