British Journalist: Privacy is for Pedos

[jimmy olsen]

Truly a shinning beacon of journalism ethics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/europe/british-hacking-scandal-widens-to-government-secrets.html?_r=2&hp

British Inquiry Is Told Hacking Is Worthy Tool
By SARAH LYALL
Published: November 29, 2011

LONDON — He admitted that he and his colleagues hacked into people's phones and paid police officers for tips. He confessed to lurking in unmarked vans outside people's houses, stealing confidential documents, rifling through celebrity garbage cans and pretending that he was not a journalist pursuing a story but "Brad the teenage rent boy," propositioning a priest.

After Paul McMullan, a former deputy features editor at Rupert Murdoch's now-defunct News of the World tabloid, had finished his jaw-droppingly brazen remarks at a judicial inquiry on Tuesday, it was hard to think of any dubious news-gathering technique he had not confessed to, short of pistol-whipping sources for information.

Nor were the practices he described limited to a select few, Mr. McMullan said in an afternoon of testimony at the Leveson Inquiry, which is investigating media ethics in Britain the wake of the summer's phone hacking scandal. On the contrary, he said, The News of the World's underlings were encouraged by their circulation-obsessed bosses to use any means necessary to get material.

"We did all these things for our editors, for Rebekah Brooks and for Andy Coulson," Mr. McMullan said, referring to two former News of the World editors who, he said, "should have had the strength of conviction to say, 'Yes, sometimes you have to stray into black or gray illegal areas.' "

He added: "They should have been the heroes of journalism, but they aren't. They are the scum of journalism for trying to drop me and my colleagues in it."

Mr. Coulson, who resigned from his job as chief spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron in January, and Mrs. Brooks, who resigned in July from her job as chief executive of News International, the British newspaper arm of the Murdoch empire, have both been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking, or illegally intercepting voice mail messages. Mrs. Brooks, whom Mr. McMullan called "the archcriminal," is also suspected of making illegal payments to the police.

Both have repeatedly denied the allegations, and neither has yet been charged.

Nothing that Mr. McMullan said was particularly surprising; anyone following the phone hacking scandal that engulfed News International and its parent, the News Corporation, over the summer is now more than familiar with outrageous tales of tabloid malfeasance. What was startling was that Mr. McMullan, who left his job in 2001, eagerly confessed to so much and on such a scale — no one else has done it quite this way — and that he maintained that none of it was wrong.

Most people from the tabloid world have reacted to the revelations in the manner of Renault when discussing gambling in "Casablanca," saying they are "shocked, shocked." But Mr. McMullan veered so far in the other direction that at times he sounded like a satirist's rendition of an amoral tabloid hack.

Underhanded reporting techniques are not shocking at all, he said, particularly in light of how often he and his colleagues risked their lives in search of the truth.

As examples of the dangers of his job, he described having cocaine-laced marijuana forced on him by knife-wielding drug dealers in a sting operation; being attacked by a crowd of murderous asylum seekers; and, in his "Brad the teenage rent boy" guise, sprinting through a convent dressed only in underpants to escape the pedophile priest he had successfully entrapped.

"Phone hacking is a perfectly acceptable tool, given the sacrifices we make, if all we're trying to do is get to the truth," Mr. McMullan said, asking whether "we really want to live in a world where the only people who can do the hacking are MI5 and MI6."

No, he said, we do not.

"For a brief period of about 20 years, we have actually lived in a free society where we can hack back," he said.

Journalists in Britain have traditionally justified shady practices by arguing that they are in "the public interest." Asked by an inquiry lawyer how he would define that, Mr. McMullan said that the public interest is what the public is interested in.

"I think the public is clever enough to decide the ethics of what it wants in its own newspapers," he said. Referring to articles about Charlotte Church, a singer who told the inquiry this week of her distress at her family's treatment by the tabloids, he said, "If they don't like what you have written about Charlotte Church's father having a three-in-a-bed with cocaine, then they won't read it."

For all that, Mr. McMullan said that The News of the World had come to rely too much on outsiders to do work that could have easily been done by reporters, like conducting surveillance on potentially adulterous athletes. Also, he said, some of the investigators were incompetent.

The year he became deputy features editor, he said, the department had a budget of £ 3.1 million — more than $4.5 million — to pay sources, buy stories and hire outsiders to find addresses, medical records and other information. "That was the joy of working for Murdoch," he said. "They had that big pot of money."

Mr. McMullan, who now owns a pub and does occasional freelance work, spoke nostalgically of his tabloid career, seven years of it spent at The News of the World. He loved spiriting exclusive sources away "and hiding them from other journalists," he said, as when he "spent two weeks locked in a hotel room with Princess Diana's gym instructor in Amsterdam."

He also liked jumping in one of The News of the World's stable of 12 cars and speeding away in pursuit of famous targets.

"I absolutely loved giving chase to celebrities," he said. "How many jobs can you have car chases in? Before Diana died, it was such good fun." (Some celebrities liked it, too, he said. Brad Pitt "had a very positive attitude" about being pursued by crazed journalists in cars.)

Mr. McMullan had brought along some illustrative materials, including a photograph of his surveillance van. He also briefly displayed a topless photograph of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy in The News of the World, apparently as a way to show how easy it is to obtain racy photographs.

"That's the president of France's wife," he said.

"It's a little early in the day for that, Mr. McMullan," the inquiry lawyer said.

Many witnesses at the Leveson Inquiry, especially victims of the tabloids, have called for a law to protect citizens from news media intrusion. Mr. McMullan said he thought that privacy was "evil," in that it helps criminals cover up their misdeeds.

Using a Britishism for "pedophile," he said, "Privacy is for pedos."

[Brazen]

Journalists in Britain have traditionally justified shady practices by arguing that they are in "the public interest." Asked by an inquiry lawyer how he would define that, Mr. McMullan said that the public interest is what the public is interested in.

Well, that's incorrect and one of the first things they teach you in journalism law.

Breaking the law (not any code of ethics), such as stealing documents, should be treated as a separate issue from whether it was done in the course of getting a story.

More power to him for some of the ballsy string operations he's been on. I think it's a bit much to ask travelling to Wales and back in a day for a story 

Here's the PCC's definition of public interest:

The public interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.

3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest.

4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.

5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

[Sheilbh]

He really is central casting tabloid journalist:


Edit:  Much of what he did was pretty unpleasant but he has charm.  He's The Telegraph's Youtube of some of his tabloid stories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWrfUMQrpgw

[Barrister]

Well you have to admire his honesty if nothing else.

And I do sometimes wonder about how much stock we try and put in privacy.  I do tend to think that privacy, if it is not completely dead in our technological society, is at this point pining for the fjords.

[Brazen]

McMullan's exploits, and in fact much of the NOTW's revelations, are treated admirably, if not jealously, by the broadsheets:

Paul McMullan lays bare newspaper dark arts at Leveson inquiry

Former News of the World man defends brutal Sunday tabloid world

'Privacy is for paedos," declared former News of the World man and tabloid veteran Paul McMullan in the midst of his evidence at the Leveson inquiry. He had only just observed that "in 21 years of invading people's privacy I've never found anybody doing any good" – statements that together amounted to a credo for the brutal Sunday tabloid world of which McMullan became the chief spokesman in the otherwise stifled confines of courtroom 73.

The public interest, he said, added up to no more than the sheer number of copies the News of the World could sell. "Circulation defines the public interest" – which meant that everything was legitimate as long as the public bought the paper. "You have to appeal to what the reader wants – this is what the people of Britain wants. I was simply serving their need," he said, before describing a career of capers justified by the observation that "you just don't go up to a paedophile priest and say, hello good sir, you are a priest, do you like abusing choir boys?" Which, he argued, apparently gave cause for a culture of blagging, surveillance, and even phone hacking, although he stopped short of incriminating himself on that one.

In some moments, it was impossible not to admire the bravery and the brio, as McMullan's career flashed before our eyes. He was sent home from the Gulf war – because it was not interesting Screws readers – and gave up investigative journalism after a lump of concrete was thrown at his head when he was looking into asylum seekers at Sangatte. But he "absolutely loved giving chase to celebrities. Before Diana died it was such good fun. How many jobs can you have car chases in? It was great." And you could almost believe it, before he made the suggestion that Sienna Miller should be "cockahoop" because she had 15 photographers outside her house harassing her, because "who's she?"

McMullan paid one "rent boy" £2,000, then dressed up as another to expose a priest. Having snapped the picture of the reverend in flagrante, the two ran off in their underpants "through a nunnery at midnight" to get the story safely into the paper. "That under Piers Morgan," McMullan said.

Leveson seemed largely content to let this all play out, but it often seemed a bit too graphic for David Barr, the lawyer for the inquiry who nominally had the task of drawing out McMullan through his questions. In fact, Barr battled to hold the man back; at one point he tried to dissuade McMullan from holding up a cutting of one his proudest stories – a topless shot of Carla Bruni. McMullan did so anyway.

It should perhaps have not come as a surprise that McMullan would defend the decision to hack into Milly Dowler's phone, which "was not a bad thing for a well-meaning journalist who is only trying to find the girl to do". One can only wonder what the Dowler family think of that.

As he arrived at the high court, McMullan asked an ITV journalist for the way in. He was advised that if he chose the side entrance he would be filmed and photographed. The side entrance was the route he chose.

McMullan wanted his viewpoint to be seen and heard; after all, he said, he felt that Rupert Murdoch "didn't have a right to close" the News of the World where people like him swam and survived.

But if there was grandstanding, it was still worth hearing every word: here espoused was the end point of the regulation-free, market-driven, anything-goes tabloid morality. And for it, he was paid £60,000 a year as deputy features editor, and claimed £15,000 to £20,000 in expenses, of which, he added, "£3,000 was legitimate".

The Milly Dowler thing is bloody awful, especially as her parents thought she was alive when the police told them her voicemails had been picked up. However I don't entirely disbelieve the statement the NTOW were interested in finding her more than anything else. It did have a history of campaigning and bringing its massive readership to bear on what it considered worthy causes.

[The Minsky Moment]

He was sent home from the Gulf war – because it was not interesting Screws readers – and gave up investigative journalism after a lump of concrete was thrown at his head when he was looking into asylum seekers at Sangatte. But he "absolutely loved giving chase to celebrities

In a sense, this is a greater indictment of the man and his employer than the actual crimes he committed.

[Martinus]

I hope they throw the book at that motherfucker.

[Sheilbh]

I hope they throw the book at that motherfucker.

I don't think he's committed any crimes

[grumbler]

Well you have to admire his honesty if nothing else. 

I see no evidence of honesty here.  Lots of lying and weaseling and a fair amount of arrogance, but no honesty.

His 'truths" are all remarkably convenient for him.

And I do sometimes wonder about how much stock we try and put in privacy.  I do tend to think that privacy, if it is not completely dead in our technological society, is at this point pining for the fjords.

Interesting.  In our technological society, it still appears to be holding its own.  Probably because our technological society has so much more data to sort through than yours that our data miners have to focus on trends, not individuals.

Of course, our technological society has less privacy than it did a decade or so ago (probably true of your technological society as well), but we are nowhere near your level of " if ...not completely dead in our technological society, ....[then] pining for the fjords."

[Barrister]

Well you have to admire his honesty if nothing else. 

I see no evidence of honesty here.  Lots of lying and weaseling and a fair amount of arrogance, but no honesty.

His 'truths" are all remarkably convenient for him.

Well there's lots of self-justification going on, but the article points out that while everyone else has been claiming they knew nothing about these kinds of practices, he's the first one to admit to what everyone knows - that these kinds of practices are commonplace.

[Razgovory]

Well you have to admire his honesty if nothing else. 

I see no evidence of honesty here.  Lots of lying and weaseling and a fair amount of arrogance, but no honesty.

His 'truths" are all remarkably convenient for him.

And I do sometimes wonder about how much stock we try and put in privacy.  I do tend to think that privacy, if it is not completely dead in our technological society, is at this point pining for the fjords.

Interesting.  In our technological society, it still appears to be holding its own.  Probably because our technological society has so much more data to sort through than yours that our data miners have to focus on trends, not individuals.

Of course, our technological society has less privacy than it did a decade or so ago (probably true of your technological society as well), but we are nowhere near your level of " if ...not completely dead in our technological society, ....[then] pining for the fjords."

I get the impression he's not entirely honest here.  After all, he worked at News of the World.  I wouldn't expect honesty.

[Sheilbh]

I see no evidence of honesty here.  Lots of lying and weaseling and a fair amount of arrogance, but no honesty.

His 'truths" are all remarkably convenient for him.

How are you defining honesty?  In what way are these truths convenient for him or deserving of 'truth' treatment?

[The Brain]

Does anyone NOT think that journalists are scum? Enough with the dead horse already.

[grumbler]

How are you defining honesty? 

2 a : fairness and straightforwardness of conduct b : adherence to the facts : sincerity 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honesty

In what way are these truths convenient for him or deserving of 'truth' treatment?

"Privacy is for pedos" from a man who "loved spiriting exclusive sources away "and hiding them from other journalists," knowing that what he was doing was absolutely indistinguishable from the sort of actions that "helps criminals cover up their misdeeds."  Claiming (laughably, IMO) that because of "how often" he and his fellows "risked their lives in search of the truth" it was justified that they engage in "underhanded reporting techniques."

The guy's sleazy rationalization for being an asshole makes me vomit.  I don't believe for one second that he "often... risked [his life] in search of the truth."  I don't get any feeling he gave a rat's ass about "truth."  Just sales.  I don't have any problem with his delusions of grandeur that had him "jumping in one of The News of the World's stable of 12 cars and speeding away in pursuit of famous targets" or that he was fatuous enough to define "the public interest" as merely "what the public is interested in."  Those are merely concepts common to juvenile minds.  What i object to is his claim that his profession is privileged above mere mortal professions because it somehow takes risks others do not, plus his definition of privacy and public interest in entirely self-serving ways.  I am willing to bet that, if you sat in his bar asking each customer their name and telling them that you were keeping tabs on what they ate and drank, he'd not concede that his customers' objections were ""evil," in that they helped "criminals cover up their misdeeds."

In other words, he seems to me to be a typical British "journalist" of the tabloid tradition.  If I were a real journalist in Britain, I would probably be exhausted all the time because I would be busy every day making, and every evening deploying, enough firebombs to burn out the scum "newspapers" that made my livelihood a laughingstock internationally.

[Neil]

Britain should exchange journalists with Russia.