Every British newspaper, and presumably many American ones, will be plastered with this tomorrow. A story that was once, with a couple of honorable exceptions, dismissed across our press for reasons primarily rooted in self-preservation—a phenomenon I wrote about for CJR’s May/June issue—has by common consent become the most fascinating and dramatic on the British domestic landscape this year.
When the dust has settled, attention will turn to the cold logic that must lie at the heart of the Murdoch plan. It isn’t that hard to figure out, really. Already there have been moves toward integrating the conglomerate’s Sunday and daily titles, and while the loss of the News of the World brand is a body blow, it also made room for what the National Union of Journalists called “an act of utter cynical opportunism” in the sudden cull of so many staff members at once. The assumption is that a Sunday Sun, produced as part of a rolling seven day operation that absorbs a few of those beleaguered hacks, will pick up most of the News of the World’s floating readers, and serve advertisers at a much smaller cost.
Will this work? I guess I hope so, because I don’t want to see even more journalists out of a job. Still, there would be a certain moral satisfaction in seeing the scheme flounder, and I suspect that this is what will ultimately happen.
The great irony of the News of The World’s fate is that the shortcut of phone hacking was so attractive precisely because the paper thrived on the most expensive kind of journalism: the getting of significant scoops, often involving the cultivation of sources over many months, high-tech equipment, wild goose chases to the other side of the world, and of course (and rather less impressively) the payment of considerable sums of money to helpful people. That kind of work requires a dedicated staff, not one seventh of a wider operation more interested in the overall bottom line.
Since the News of the World never had a real heart, people only really bought it for its exclusives, stories that made people feel like they had to know what was going on. Without these scoops, its successor will surely fail. If it does, and if she is still at News International, perhaps Rebekah Brooks will finally get her comeuppance.
In a way, it would be fitting if her fall were to come for base commercial reasons, and not for the outrageous ethical breaches that occurred on her watch. That way, at least the News of the World would have a legacy befitting its life.
Funny, I don't feel a shred of pity for the "journalists" who are out of a job. They all knew about this, if they didn't do it themselves. The people who worked at News of the World are reprehensible, without ethics, and a stain upon the profession of journalism, and I hope they never work again in any capacity, much less at another media job. They are no better than Ms. Brooks or Murdoch himself, and every bit as corrupt. There is already too much of journalists covering up for each other's excesses and bad behavior.
That you excuse them from their responsibility in this debacle and feel sorry for them doesn't do you any credit, either.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 12:31 AM
I agree 100% with #1 by James
#2 Posted by Hartley Lord, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 03:47 PM
I agree 100% with #1 by James
#3 Posted by Hartley Lord, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 03:49 PM
The final piece of the jigsaw was that - having deleted Milly Dowler's voicemail messages and as a result, given her parent's hope that she was still alive - the NoTW proceeded to interview them about this very thing and to report on their hopes for her safe return, in the full knowledge that they had themselves actually done the deleting.
#4 Posted by Liz Terry, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 03:50 PM
i would just like to recount briefly an encounter with one of rupert's u.s. henchmen, the very one who wrote the "son of sam" stories for the n.y. post, steve donleavy, a kiwi ex rugby player who it turned out had gouged eyes and bitten off ears during his days as a reporter in asia and hooking up with rupert. i was the publisher of urizen books and had done Wilfred Burchett's [an Aussie] GRASSHOPPERS AND ELEPHANTS which was Wilfred's very much inside account of being with the Vietcong up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I recall going out at 4 pm for my pickme-up Mars bar and seeing Wilfred's photo, pudgy faced, on the front page of the NY Post: "Torturer of G.I's in New York." My heart sank as I chewed my Mars bar and walked the two blocks back to my office: "No, Wilfred, please no," I prayed and then called the White House communications director, Hoving, who said, "Nonsense", he has a visa, he was part of the peace process, he was one of Uncle Ho's gobetween." I had invited a lot of journalists to a by then famous restaurant where i had been going when it was just a hole in the wall on 2nd Avenue, Elaine's, lots of journalists who had been in touch with Wilfred during their mutual Vietnam days. David Halberstam, David Arnett, a table full, the big table and we were having a good time, I was just a kid then, the year in 1978, when Donleavy barges in and ruins the evening. Elaine Kaufman, the recently deceased owner tells me I might want to leave through the kitchen, Donleavy has his Post photographer waiting outside. I make the mistake of taking Mama's advice and leave through the kitchen when Donleavy and photographer barge into the kitchen and he pushes me aside, who has interposed himself between him and Wilfred and his Bulgarian wife. That is called assault and I called the police and took Donleavy to court and the judge said you can read Donleavy's record, Wilfred had provided me with it, into the court record or you have to bring all the witnesses to court, three times, and I will give you a conviction for leaving the cover off a garbage can [a priceless detail, no?]. I took the judge up on his offer. As Donleavy and his Post lawyer and I left Part One Leonard Street court, where we had been called first among the hundreds that morning, Donleavy said: "Aren't you glad I didn't bite off your ear." A sense of humor then makes me forgive Steve Donleavy and his toupe, but not a publisher who employs his likes. here is a link to the story at a posting about Elaine's on my http://artscritic.blogspot.com/
#5 Posted by michael roloff, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 07:35 PM
Don't take this personally, but you folks need help. The logic above is almost as hollow as the content it mistakes for news.
Perhaps a few of them wanted to inform the public by working at a newspaper. That's like saying they meant to be nurses, and somehow wound up selling heroin on a playground. Heartwarming, but what's your point? At NoTW they did neither.
The claim that important journalism costs money presumes the costs involve things like filing document requests, or defending oneself in court from unaccountable officials -- not bribing them to help you violate the law. Buying high-tech toys, flying around and acting like a predatory slimeball do not add up to journalism. Sorry.
Yes, it's ridiculous hearing British politicians vow to regulate the splinter in their neighbor's eye. Sure, that announcement took gall. But who did they think they were working for? So Murdoch's operatives were shocked to meet the business end of instincts normally reserved for harming others? There's a fitting moral for you now.
#6 Posted by Anon, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 07:37 PM
I dunno if the move to a Sunday Sun is going to last long. Aren't there reports that the Sun is ALSO under investigation for the same phone hacking illegality?
#7 Posted by Paul Wartenberg, CJR on Sat 9 Jul 2011 at 09:28 PM
For how long has phone hacking been SOP for sleazy papers?
#8 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sun 10 Jul 2011 at 03:23 AM