Combine the culture of checkbook journalism with the culture of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and you get one of the biggest media scandals of all time.
Paying for news is at the root of News Corp.’s hacking and bribery scandals, and the reaction by tabloid hacks to the revelations about The Sun is revealing about the journalistic environment that gave rise to them.
Here’s Murdoch’s former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, writing in the Daily Mail (emphasis mine) :
If the whistle-blower asks for money, so what? It’s better that we know, for example, that our local hospital is killing its elderly patients through lack of care than have the Press ignore a nurse or an ambulance driver who is asking for payment for such information.
I suspect you, as a reader, will be pleased that newspapers report such scandals, even if they have to pay money to find out about them. How, otherwise, would we discover what’s really happening?
By reporting, I reckon. U.S. newspapers have frequently exposed abusive nursing homes and defective hospitals over the years, using conventional reporting methods. In fact, that story is something of a staple of U.S. journalism. And, really, does there exist an ambulance driver or nurse so callous as to demand a payoff before blowing the whistle on a “local hospital killing its elderly patients through lack of care?” Or is that just a made-up example? And besides, we’re not talking about killer-hospital stories. These is basically about gossip, isn’t it?
Nice try, MacKenzie.
Here’s Sun deputy editor Trevor Kavanagh attacking the police raids on his colleagues a couple of weeks ago (emphasis his):
These stories sometimes involve whistleblowers. Sometimes money changes hands. This has been standard procedure as long as newspapers have existed, here and abroad.
There is nothing disreputable about it. And, as far as we know at this point, nothing illegal.
The Sun is accused of getting stories by systematically bribing police and other government officials with hundreds of thousands of pounds—something Rupert Murdoch has all but admitted. Some officials were effectively on retainer to provide what the cops say was mostly “salacious gossip.”
At News of the World the hacking was outsourced to private investigators like Glenn Mulcaire and Jonathan Rees, and they were paid for their information much like any other source with inside dope. They in turn paid cops and other officials for their info, reportedly to the tune of at least $160,000
It’s clear from the quotes above that this culture of bribing public officials for information comes directly from the culture of paying non-officials for information. This is a news culture where at least some participants, including senior ones like MacKenzie, can’t fathom getting much of the sensitive information they report without paying for it. Bribing the cops, then, is only natural, and perhaps inevitable—particularly in a market as competitive as Fleet Street.
Once money enters the reporting equation, it has the potential to corrupt the whole journalist/source relationship. Why would you talk to a reporter for free if you can get 500 quid, say, from another one?
The man on the street understands this, so it’s not surprising that cops and other government officials would ask for money too—or accept it when enticed by those who’ve become dependent on it to get stories. The Met says one Sun journalist paid out $240,000 to officials over several years.
It’s also not surprising that Murdoch’s papers were the fastest down the slippery slope. We’ve long known that his outlets tend to play loose with—or ignore altogether—the rules of journalism, such as they are. I’ve written before that “Murdoch just never bought into —indeed, he sneers at it—the ethical edifice that journalism as an institution built up over the last half a century or so. He’s hardly the only one, but few so aggressively laid bare their disregard for standards, both journalistic and societal,” and that that attitude gave him a sort of selection advantage against competitors. It’s like Gresham’s Law, where bad money drives out the good.