In a recent spasm of radio and TV interviews about #hackgate the last couple weeks, everyone wanted to know whether a News of the World scandal could happen here.
I mean, we’re just as bad, aren’t we?
After all, Howard Kurtz says: “British tabloid tactics are rampant in American journalism, too.”
The Wall Street Journal’s special committee on editorial integrity (true, rather hapless as oversight bodies go ) felt compelled to assure readers this morning that hacking and bribery do not, repeat not, take place even at my old paper, perish the thought.
But, actually, the answer is no, you won’t see a NotW-style scandal unfurling here anytime soon.
The first thing to keep in mind is the sheer scale of NotW-gate—rampant criminal activity on an institutional scale, an entire newsroom running amok, with, as we’re learning, active participation of top editors, including Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks (who herself told Parliament of paying police for information, before saying she couldn’t remember actual instances). On top of this, NotW includes senior News Corp. figures playing key roles in keeping the crimes under wraps, including Les Hinton who told Parliament he had checked thoroughly and found it was only a single reporter, and James Murdoch, now deputy COO, who authorized payments to hacking victims and was well-briefed on what it was about, despite what he told Parliament. (For a nice summary of #hackgate sins, see Chittum.)
So, first question: What’s the precedent in modern U.S. press history for anything like that? There isn’t one (true, there isn’t one in Britain either, but stay with me).
Some people, including Kurtz, try to cite the Chiquita Banana case as analogous. No, it proves the opposite point. In that case, the reporter, Mike Gallagher—so secretive about hacking into company officials’ voicemails—didn’t even tell his own partner, Cameron McWhirter, who later wrote about it for us (the link only goes to the top of the story; I’m trying to get a better one). The Wall Street Journal at the time reported sources saying that some of the hacking calls were made from a payphone near Gallagher’s house.*
Not only was Gallagher criminally prosecuted as a matter of course; not only did his paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, run a massive, groveling, page one apology; not only did its owner, Gannett, fork over a $10 million-plus settlement; but to the everlasting shame of one and all, the paper also retracted the entire, 18-page project (which is still floating around out there, thanks to an environmental site called Mindfully.org), even though the hacked voice mail touched only a fraction of the series. (A forthright New York Times piece by the excellent Douglas Frantz probed serious allegations against the company, which included harming workers with pesticide use, evading local land-ownership laws, and bribery.) The county convened a special prosecutor against the newspaper. Civil litigation ensued, etc. etc.
That’s one reporter, 13 years ago. And it was Armageddon. NotW is a whole news organization, 4,000 victims, over years and years, with knowledge, and perhaps complicity, running to the highest levels.
Sure, there are the famous fabulists, Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, and, I’m sure, plenty of others discovered and undiscovered. ABC staffers misrepresented themselves to go undercover for the Food Lion story. They were eventually vindicated, but it was literally a federal case. NBC staged the GM pickup truck Pinto explosion and didn’t let on.
Egregious screwups. But institutional scale criminality? No.
- 1
- 2
Independent: Tom Watson: 'It has seemed like surfing a giant wave for two weeks' The Monday Interview Tom Watson tells Martin Hickman about his role as scourge of the Murdochs, and why his battle isn't over Monday, 25 July 2011
[He has an interest in technology and was one of the first MPs to blog and use Twitter. While many newspapers were not reporting the scandal, social media was "key", he recalls, adding that the papers that did investigate were "The Independent, the Independent on Sunday, the Guardian and FT".
"The other papers were not reporting the story, so it was social media that kept the issue alive and many thousands of people on social media have been concerned that a cover up has taken place.
"I think the story might not have come about had not people using social media expressed their outrage. Certainly without Facebook or Twitter a consumer boycott of the advertisers of the News of the World would not have been organised so quickly."]
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 25 Jul 2011 at 12:31 PM
The Guardian and Telegraph have set the pace for phone hacking live news blogs. Despite Telegraph skill in incorporating Twitter, The Guardian has pulled away--its coverage today is superior. Meanwhile, The New York Times has about.com.
I see this story in a different way. The true contrast is between the plasticity of UK media and the obsolescence of American media. (How could we have had the bizarre "Education Life" in The NYT Sunday, as a substitute for a Higher Education section, as in The Australian? The best move by The NYT this week: the new Book Review column by Geoff Dyer. However, ironically, the somewhat dazed editors at the BR failed to proof this sentence: "The depths of self-absorption that makes this possible are hard to fathom."
Georgina Henry named head of guardian.co.uk
Current head of culture of Guardian and Observer takes role as Janine Gibson moves to US to lead GNM's new digital operation
Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 10.26 BST [...]
[In an email to staff Alan Rusbridger, the editor-in-chief of GNM, also announced further appointments to the US operation.
Adam Gabbatt will be the Guardian's New York live blogger, Aidan Geary will be going to the US as executive producer, Tim Hill will be the deputy production editor, and Nell Boase will relocate to New York as managing editor.
Matt Wells, guardian.co.uk blogs and networks editor, Guardian senior reporter Karen McVeigh and sports blogs editor Steve Busfield are also relocating to New York.]
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 25 Jul 2011 at 12:55 PM
[The papers involved ran the gamut of the U.K. press scene (but not our heroes, the Guardian). Put it this way, NotW came in fifth! Murdoch’s paper, with a mere 182 transactions by 19 journalists, was a piker compared to the Daily Mail—952 deals by 58 journos! Even quality papers, the Observer (103 deals/4 journos), the Sunday Times (52/7).]
Phone hacking investigation widens to sale of private details
Police handed files from Operation Motorman, which found 3,522 suspected cases of media having illegal access to records
James Ball and Jamie Thunder
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 17.29 BST
[The files were the basis for the information commissioner's report, in 2006, entitled What Price Privacy Now?, which identified 3,522 occasions when 305 journalists requested information that the commission believed was likely to have been obtained illegally.
The Daily Mail topped its list, with 952 identified transactions, followed by the Sunday People with 802 and Daily Mirror with 681. The Observer, published by Guardian News & Media, was further down the list, with four journalists said to have accessed information on 103 occasions.]
The readers' editor on… the Observer and the private investigator
Stephen Pritchard The Observer, Sunday 13 February 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/feb/13/observer-phone-hacking-private-investigators
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 25 Jul 2011 at 01:27 PM
Dean, I agree with your point about cultural differences, but take issue with your commendation of Anthony Lane's piece, which is precisely the sort of superficial--though characteristically sparkling--work one expects from him. He treats the lust for tabloid monstrosity as a curious British custom without exploring what Murdoch has used it for--fronting a top-level position in the British political class, which is thankfully now rocky. He takes Murdoch's lust for slime as an odd quirk rather than as an accompaniment to a *politics* or rather, a political-economic position. The best treatment of the larger picture is Anthony Barnett's: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/after-murdoch/ I heartily recommend it.
#4 Posted by Todd Gitlin, CJR on Mon 25 Jul 2011 at 09:46 PM
@Todd: So Murdoch isn't just politically wrong - he's evil too? Still, I wonder if Murdoch at his worst ever said anything as utterly myopic and hyper-partisan as this ditty:
"Repeat after me:. Again. And again. Vary the details. There are plenty. Somebody on the ‘list posted a strong list of McCain lies earlier today. Hammer it. Philosophize, as Nietzsche said, with a hammer.”
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 26 Jul 2011 at 12:41 PM
Todd,
I thought Lane gave a decent cultural tour of the U.K. tabloid scene, a longstanding object of curiosity for me, but, yup, Barnett goes much deeper. I'll add a link above.
#6 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Tue 26 Jul 2011 at 05:26 PM