Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[crazy canuck]

These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets.

Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy?  Seems a difficult concept.

[grumbler]

Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy?  Seems a difficult concept.

What protections of free press allow journalists to break the law?  This doesn't seem a difficult concept at all.

[Barrister]

Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy?  Seems a difficult concept.

What protections of free press allow journalists to break the law?  This doesn't seem a difficult concept at all.

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.

[DontSayBanana]

Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy?  Seems a difficult concept.

The freedom to run any story they like?  That's not at issue.  The issue is the (probably) systematic invasions of privacy to get information for those stories- that was never protected in the first place.  They broke laws in the pursuit of a scoop, got caught, and some are trying to blur this into a press freedoms issue, when it is and always has been an ethics (or lack thereof) issue.

[Capetan Mihali]

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.

I seem to remember people getting prison sentences for doing that in the US...

[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...