The end of the press baron

If this whole phone hacking scandal has taught me anything, it's that the end has come for the once prestigious, dangerous and often completely mad press barons.

For centuries, the press and most of the media in our country has been run by a selected few, majority men, from an East London office overlooking the city, or somewhere more exotic.

Or, in Rupert Murdoch's case, running his company, one would presume, from space. Because it transpires that Mr Murdoch - the Australian media magnate, who owns News Corporation, one of the worlds biggest media conglomerates - despite having his fingers in practically every country, fails to know what goes on behind the scenes of one of his companies.

Yes, the story of the year has seen a whole inquiry, international criticism and millions of settlements hit the news, all down to one man. But this one man and his family fail to acknowledge any of it. They, it seems, had no idea it was going on.

The ongoing Leveson inquiry will probably uncover the real truth behind the whole fiasco, but what I wonder is, when did the media barons take a step back from their empires and stop caring?

Way back at the end of the 19th century, the media landscape was controlled by the printed press. Newspaper owners were scary characters, not unfamiliar to those of today, but they played a much bigger role in the newsroom.

Take Lord Northcliffe for example. The proprietor was running the most successful paper of the 19th century, The Times, and later started the Daily Mail. He was notorious for harassing his staff and shaped the entire content of his papers, including the layout.

He even famously told his staff 'to find one murder a day, or else!'

Of course, behaviour like this would not be tolerated in today's society, but it goes to show just how far things have come. Northcliffe was there in the office at 5am, he had the knowledge and expertise to write, produce and print the newspaper.

And he wasn't alone. Other famous proprietors - Lords Beaverbrook, Camrose and Kemsley - were all the same, and at the time, were producing some of the best quality papers of that era.

But sadly, this isn't the case now. Media companies are bigger now, and the media owners, it seems, have less control on their companies then they did in the past.

Maybe Murdoch could learn something from them? Or is it a bit too late now. I mean, he isn't getting any younger, and no way near ready to admit the truth. But it just goes to show, that despite the advancements in the media and the availability of news, we could still learn a thing or two from the forgotten world of the press baron.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

Is Vince Cable the only honest politician in Cabinet?

I feel rather sorry for Vince Cable. Throughout the recent Leveson inquiry, Mr Cable has remained quiet. A defeated champion of the people, he was one of the first people to criticise the Murdoch's, yet was hastily condemned by ministers and the newspapers over his actions.

It was way back in late 2010 that Cable's honesty got the better of him. Only six months into his role as Business Secretary for the coalition government, the Liberal Democrat was set up by journalists from The Daily Telegraph who posed as his constituents and arranged a meeting with Mr Cable. Undercover, the journalists asked questions which Mr Cable answered openly and honestly.

One of the questions Cable answered regarded the current bid by News Corporation, founded and chaired by Rupert Murdoch, to takeover the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, for which it has a stake in. Mr Cable's role as Business Secretary means that he is in charge of takeover's, including media affairs. Offering an un-bias review into the takeover, the Business Secretary is meant to examine all the evidence for/ against the takeover, with an objective stance.

Which is where Mr Cable's views got in the way, jeopardising his objectivity. Speaking to whom he thought were his constituents, Mr Cable told the undercover journalists that he had "declared war on Mr Murdoch", and that "I think we are going to win."

The resulting furore over his comments resulted in him losing his responsibility for media affairs, with the review into the BSkyB takeover being referred to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. There were even calls for him to be sacked from his position as Business Secretary.

Now fast-forward to April 2012 and it seems similar circumstances are occurring again, this time with Jeremy Hunt. Before the takeover was abandoned following revelations of phone hacking at News International (the owners of titles including The Sun and the now defunct News of the World), it was rumoured that Jeremy Hunt would accept the takeover. The Conservative party have always been firm friends with the Murdoch's, as the Leveson inquiry has revealed, and with Mr Hunt's strong stance against the BBC, it would seem appropriate to accept the takeover. After all, BSkyB is creating billions of pounds for the UK economy, whereas the government are pumping money into the BBC. If it wasn't for the phone hacking allegations and calls from Ofcom for the review to be delayed, he would probably have accepted the takeover.

So the revelations that Jeremy Hunt was said to have an 'improper realtionship' with News Corporation following a series of leaked emails between the Mr Hunt's adviser and a PR adviser for News Corp came at no surprise. This is the man who didn't bother sending the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission or listen to the calls from Ofcom to abandon the bid. In fact, it wasn't until after the phone hacking scandal came to light that the bid was rejected by the government, despite many years of allegations surrounding phone hacking being public knowledge.

It's fair to say his incompetence and bias in favour of the Murdoch empire has significantly damaged his reputation, and yes calls have been made by the opposition for Mr Hunt to resign. Yet not to the same extent as when calls were made for the resignation of Mr Cable.

Now I don't tend to think that two wrongs make a right, but in this case, wasn't Vince Cable right all along? He was cornered into admitting what he really thought, which in a situation like a constituency meeting, is perfectly acceptable. It's the public's right to hear the truth, and that's exactly what Vince Cable gave them.

In fact, the Press Complaints Commission agreed. They found that the Daily Telegraph had not acted in the public interest. It later emerged that the two undercover journalist's had been links to News International. A coincidence perhaps?

Vince Cable merely told the truth. Maybe it did undermine his objectivity, but I commend him. He had the guts to speak the truth to stand up against Mr Murdoch. Fast forward to 2012, and now all the politicians are doing it.

So following an interview with Sky this weekend, where he said he feels 'vindicated by BSkyB', maybe we should be praising Mr Cable for being an honest politician. He was right all along.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia