NOTW to close

[eFestivals]

where does anyone's right to privacy fit in all this?

the existing rules allow for that right to privacy.

For example, from all angles, the story about Brown's kid is outside of those rules. There is no genuine 'public interest' aspect to that story (it might be of interest to some of the public, but that's not what 'public interest' means).

The paper published it all the same, because they knew that the consequences back onto them for doing so were so feeble that they could be ignored. It's this part that needs tightening so that there are significant consequences onto a paper for breaking the rules - the rules themselves are about right.

[eFestivals]

this is what I'm talking about. If there are regulations, how is it they are constantly ignored..?

because the press regulates the press via the PCC - so it's in their interests to be gentle with offenders, because the person making the ruling over today's offender might be tomorrow's offender. The rules that the PCC has are about right, but they're deliberately toothless when applying sanctions over them.

I'm not entirely sure what the answer is. I don't know if something like the PCC is the way to go or if it should be some sort of 'independent regulator', but whichever it is they need to enforce some stronger sanctions onto offending papers so that they're less likely to offend.

But in regard to the story about Brown's kid, did he even complain (I don't think he did, but I might be wrong) to the PCC? If he didn't, then it's likely that he felt it would counter-productive overall, because of the way that the Murdoch press has had politicians by the short and curlies.

But even if Murdoch and anything with similar dominance was removed from the situation I'm not entirely sure that too much would change for someone in Brown's situation - the paper that's complained about would be likely to be pissed off, and would want to get their own back in some manner. For a politician who ultimately relies on the press to get their message across, that's always a big risk.

The only way things might change with that would be if the various paper publishers had strong hostility to each other (currently they work as a cosy cabal), and published stories in a major way about the day-to-day wrong-doing of other papers. But I can't see that happening because it's much like the situation with the PCC at the moment - it'll be them that's hauled over the coals tomorrow, so don't be nasty to the offender today.

I think that there needs to be some realistic acceptance that there can never be a perfect situation around every possibility. The only way the likes of Brown could realistically stand up to the press is if the press were so strongly regulated that their freedom to publish what they like is curtailed, which brings about a further set of problems.

[eFestivals]

I don't understand why it's up to the victim to complain. If I break the law and get caught I get punished...

it still takes someone to firstly make a complaint to the police about your law-breaking. It's no different in regard to what the media do.

If the media's actions were to be subject to a pro-active review of everything they do, then the same could be said for you, and me, and everyone else. I think that whole idea starts getting into dangerous territory, because it gets into the area of a 'police state'.

[eFestivals]

No-one had complained, I wasn't obstructing anything at the time, but I was punished.

It wouldn't be that difficult for someone, representing the law, to take the papers to task when they break the laws. Ofcom do it when less than a hundred people complain about certain things on tv.

can't you see - from your own words - that those two things are working in completely different ways?

One is based on complaints, the other is not.

The one that isn't is a 100% black-and-white issue - there are, as far as the law goes, no grey areas. The same cannot ever work for the press if we wish to maintain press freedom to uncover wrong-doing.

Maybe 'we' should start complaining to... errmmm... who?

about the press, to the PCC (currently). That's exactly what it's there for.

The complaint will be correctly ruled on as good or not - the PCC doesn't tend to get these wrong. The problems come with the redress the complainant gets if their complaint is upheld.

[eFestivals]

as far as privacy rules go, that's fairly black or white a lot of the time.

"fairly black or white"? You're meaning "not black or white" by that, right? Something either 'is', or it isn't.

But there's also two angles to the privacy issue - how the info is got (which may or may not invade privacy), and whether publishing that info is an invasion of privacy. The two things don't necessarily coincide.

For the first of those, that's an extremely difficult one to deal with. Journos often don't give up the source of their info willingly, to protect that source (which might be a 'legal' source, or might not be but what they've sourced could be 'in the public interest'). I'd say that there has to be reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing (and outside of the 'public interest' defence) to pursue a journo to give up his source.

For the second part there's often a huge amount of grey area. Using the Brown's kid example again, that could be reasonably claimed to be in the public interest, because it was always possible that Brown might have decided to push more money towards research for whatever it is (I forget) that his kid suffers from, for the benefit of his own kid but to the detriment of other kids with different medical conditions. And Brown might have wanted the info out there, either for his own political benefit ('look at me, I have similar problems to deal with as others do') or even for his kid's benefit in some form (a weaker idea, but not one without any basis) - until its published then there's no real way of knowing. It's not practical to go to Brown with the first bit of info about his kid being ill to ask "do you mind if we publish...?", because until the whole thing is researched and the article written it can't be known how he might feel about what they'd actually publish (it could be sympathetic, or it could be a hatchet job).

What a person considers private or not and the consequences back on them that come from publication are not the same in any two instances, so there's really not any way to get the right balance without considering each case on its own merits - which is how things are done currently, and IMO it's the right way to go if we want our press to be able to uncover wrong-doing. The flip side to that is that sometimes the papers will get it wrong, but that's the small price that is paid for the huge benefits of a free press.

As I've already said, I don't think the sanctions back onto the press for wrongly publishing are great enough as they stand - if they were tougher then greater consideration would be made by the papers before publishing. I don't think much else is needed to regulate things in a better way to how they are now.

[Ed209]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne

this is going to rumble on and on

[The Nal]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne

this is going to rumble on and on

[Ed209]

Thats the worst yet.

A horrible, horrible c**t of a women.

[rexclark]

http://www.guardian....ing-sarah-payne

this is going to rumble on and on

[grumpyhack]

If you live by the sword prepare to die by the sword. Don't worry her moment will come.

[The Nal]

If you live by the sword prepare to die by the sword. Don't worry her moment will come.

[lost]

Piers claims also being brought into discussion again after a 2006 daily mail article has surfaced regarding Sir Paul McCartneys split from Heather Mills:

Piers said:

stories soon emerged that the marriage was in trouble – at one stage I was played a tape of a message Paul had left for Heather on her mobile phone. It was heartbreaking. The couple had clearly had a tiff, Heather had fled to India, and Paul was pleading with her to come back. He sounded lonely, miserable and desperate, and even sang ‘We Can Work It Out’…”

Edited July 29, 2011 by lost

[eFestivals]

the arrests are creeping upwards towards the top, with a Managing Editor having been arrested.

Also, at the weekend the private investigator made his first public comment after NI stopped paying his legal bills. Unfortunately his words were just a threat to NI execs, with him saying "nothing I did was done without instruction" - it makes pretty clear that he'll grass them if they stop supporting him.

What I still don't get is why no one has been charged yet (they've been arrested but not charged). There's more than enough evidence of the crimes having happened, and more than enough witnesses to outnumber any individual's denial of involvement. In just about any other case the accusations of witnesses outnumbering the denial of wrongdoing is enough for a case to proceed.

[eFestivals]

another ex-NOW editor arrested. 12 arrested so far, but no one charged - why? It's not like they don't have solid evidence.

===========

Sometime within the last month (I forget when now), Private Eye revealed exactly how and when the phone hacking started.

A guy has come forwards (with documentation to prove it) to say that around ten years ago he approached a tabloid (I forget which now) with a story of how everyone's voice mail was open to attack because they all had the same default pin code.

That paper paid him £1000 and told him it was such a major story that it would be front page news within a few days. The story never appeared, so he got back in touch with them to ask why, only to be told it was a non-story and they wouldn't be publishing it ... but he could keep the £1k.

So he went to another tabloid (I forget which) with the same story. Much the same thing happened, with him being told it was a major story and would be front page news ... and again, it never appeared.

It doesn't take a genius to work things out how things progressed from that.

[jump]

Proof has emerged that Coulson, the Murdochs and other people at the top knew & approved of the phone hacking taking place despite them claiming otherwise.

[eFestivals]

Proof has emerged that Coulson, the Murdochs and other people at the top knew & approved of the phone hacking taking place despite them claiming otherwise.

it wasn't ever really in doubt anyway, but solid proof is always good.

that's 'em totally f**ked. Good ole Rupert. PMSL.

[eFestivals]

I'm particularly loving this paragraph from that Guardian article...

Two versions of his letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle & Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson's editorial meetings and to Coulson's offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper.

Oh dear. Murdoch has just lost Sky. PMSL.

[5co77ie]

Looks like there's due to be more revelations (perhaps US ones) at the News Corp AGM today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8839815/MP-Tom-Watson-flies-to-News-Corp-AGM-to-make-fresh-revelations.html

Mr Watson, who has played a pivotal role in the Select Committee inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World, said the fresh revelations he will make at the meeting would leave shareholders "in no doubt... of the huge reputational harm to the company that will be felt for years to come" and that News Corp "is not through the worst of it yet".

[kaosmark2]

Rebekah Brooks got a £7m severance package.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/16/rebekah-brooks-severance-deal-7m

[eFestivals]

Rebekah Brooks got a £7m severance package.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/16/rebekah-brooks-severance-deal-7m

good to see that the failures are poorly rewarded, and the criminals too.

[eFestivals]

Good to be reminded how we're all in this together. ..

If the texts that were hidden from Leveson that were exchanged between Brooks and Dave Moron come out, then we'll all be properly reminded how we're not all in this together.

What gets me is WTF Leveson hasn't demanded those texts. Supposedly Dave Moron was allowed to hold threm back because they were "personal", but given how the remit of Leveson is to look at all aspects of how the press have corrupted various parts of public life, then surely too-cosy relationships between senior media execs and senior politicians is something that the public needs to know about.

[kaosmark2]

Disgraceful isn't it?

[5co77ie]

I reckon there's sensitive relationship material in the dossier - looks like Camoron may have been havin' an affair! There's no corruption involved in shagging one another.

Edited October 16, 2012 by 5co77ie

[t8yman]

The harridens' book will be sensational when it hits the shelves.