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

Will the PCC closure rejuvenate the press industry, or leave it still tarnished?

It was announced today that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the government regulative body for the printed news industry, will close after 21 years.The watchdog, which has faced intense criticism over the last year for its handling of the phone hacking affair at the News of the World, will be replaced in the meantime by a transitional body in the wake of the Leveson inquiry.

Although a decision has now been finalised, the news was somewhat expected. It was over two years ago that the commission came under scrutiny for its role in regulating the British press, where in February 2010 it was described as “toothless” by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee.
Since then, Prime Minister David Cameron said the PCC was “inadequate” and “absent” in July 2011, as he made a statement to the public regarding phone hacking.
Over the last few months, the PCC’s fate has been clear. It had failed at its attempt to regulate the press. Whether it was News International's illegal practices or the Metropolitan Police’s wrongdoing, no one can deny that the PCC failed to protect the innocent victims who were subject to their personal details being released for the general public to read.
As a journalist, are judgments are supposed to be bound to the PCC’s Code of Practice. So it is slightly ironic that the judgments of the PCC led to its downfall. It turned a blind eye at the ‘Reporting of Crime’ (code.9), it mistook ‘Confidential Sources’ (code.14) and subsequently led to the ‘Intrusion into grief or shock’ (code. 5).
The newspaper industry believes the closure of the self-regulatory body will offer a clean break from the past, an opportunity to fix the press industry’s tarnished reputation. Even Rupert Murdoch, the evil Queen at the centre of the hacking scandal - who recently launched the NOTW successor, The Sun on Sunday - pledged that the paper would be “fearless, outspoken, mischievous, fun…but committed to our high ethical standards”, echoing the industries cries for forgiveness.
So is this the start of something new for our battered news industry? It may well be the start of a grassroots movement into reigniting traditional print media, but will the newspapers learn from their mistakes and changing their wicked ways? I am doubtful. Although the government has announced that a long-term replacement is not expected to be up and running until 2014, it confirmed that the replacement would take on the assets and liabilities of the old PCC.
It remains unclear whether Lord Hunt will have to reapply for his position as Chairman ones the transition process is complete.
The papers may be celebrating at the moment, but we are from the end of seeing a free press industry. Trust is the key issue here. The public, the politicians, the celebrities; they are far from ready to put their trust in the press again, and therefore, a need for government intervention through a new body is needed. With Lord Leveson expected to publish his findings in October, the next year is likely to be an interesting and defining moment for the press industry, and one where the question of ‘freedom of the press’ remains very much unanswered.
This article was also uploaded on the Centre for Journalism website

For information on other 'News Industry' related questions, why not have a look at these blog posts?

All you need to know about Phone Hacking and the Murdoch's

Open Journalism: The Guardian deliberates

Kicking off the week

So it's the jourknow's first proper week social networking, and it proves to be a busy one. What with the continued financial crisis, Olympic security fears and is Russell going to get to Wembley on Strictly all playing on my mind - so many questions need answering on the news of the week.

Now, every Monday, I plan to do a feature called Monday Madness - where I look and analyse the biggest news story of the day, and what looks to be top of the news agenda for the coming week ahead. One particular item that caught my eye was the continued fiasco between the 'Murdoch's', the 'government' and the 'news industry'.

Quite appropriately I feel, this story has thrown up so many issues it promises to change the newspaper industry forever. With one national paper gone and more rumours of others to follow, the landscape of the British papers is in for a rocky ride. And with the Leveson Inquiry kicking off today by declaring "phone hacking " may well had been a widely-used tool by all newspapers, it will certainly be controversial!

It was a few months ago that I wrote a report on the Newspaper hacking story, delving into all the facts and rumours spinning their way across bulletins and pages. It was published on my former college website, and is well worth a read (if I may say so), if you need a brush up on what's really going on!*

*apologies if there are any outdated sources/ facts in my article - with so many developments it's hard to keep up!

-------------------------------------

If you have not been glued to the various news sites over the last month, you may be wondering what the words ‘hacking’, ‘tapping’ and ‘Rupert Murdoch’ all have in common. And why suddenly there is a gap on the shelf next to the Sunday Mirror when you go to buy your Sunday paper? Well here is a guide to one of the biggest stories that has rocked the start of the summer in its simplest form.

A man named Rupert:So, a man named Rupert Murdoch, an Australian at the grand old age of 80, and his company, News Corporation own a company called News International, which owns The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and the now defunct News of the World. Lost already? Think of him as an octopus who has his long, somewhat deadly tentacles in some of the UK’s, not to mention the worlds best media companies (Fox Network, The Wall Street Journal and publisher Harper Collins to name a few). He also owns a controlling 39% share in BSkyB, the TV giant, which until recently he planned to fully control.

The Scandal:
Despite condemnation of his conglomerate controlling many a company, his own reputation and ideology has come into immense criticism in the last few months as it has come to attention of the full extent of the ‘Phone Hacking’ scandal. The scandal actually happened in 2006/7, when a first enquiry was set up by the Metropolitan Police, which concluded little evidence available and closed the case. The scandal involves a man called Glen Mulcaire, a private investigator working for the News of the World to uncover stories through a process called Phone Hacking. It basically means the investigator can access the voicemails and phone calls of various different people, which have amassed into politicians, the Royal Family, celebrities, PR guru’s, and perhaps the most shocking, victims and families of those killed in events like the 7/7 bombings. Mulcaire, and the former Royal Correspondent Clive Goodman, have already served sentences for their roles, but since the latest outbreak of scandals and headlines, more and more names are being called to the ‘witness stand’.

So who is involved now?

Well, really there are five separate parties involved. They include:

1. News International & News Corporation - Perhaps the most complicated party, News International have ultimately been the main source for blame since the scandal broke out again. The News of the World, the paper who had been publishing the phone-hacking stories, was at the forefront of the blame - and has subsequently been shut down by News Corporation bosses. News International then CEO, Rebekah Brooks, has subsequently resigned from her post - despite the praises and fight put up by the Murdoch’s. She was alleged to have known about the hacking as CEO, which she has denied. Both Brooks, Murdoch and his son, James Murdoch - CEO of News Corporation in Europe, have all denied involvement and been fighting their innocence in parliament in front of MP’s - despite growing anger from a range of celebrities, politicians and the greater British public.

2. The Government - The Conservative Party have been criticised for their role in the scandal. Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, who was at the centre of the scandal when editor but denied any involvement in the illegal activity, was employed by the Conservatives as their ‘spin doctor’, a decision which David Cameron, Prime Minister, has now admitted as wrong and a ‘misjudgement’ on his behalf, although not fully apologising! So apart from employing the wrong bloke, the Conservatives, and to some extent other political parties, have been condemned by other media outlets for their cosy relationship with News Corporation and the Murdoch’s, and for ‘turning a blind eye’ over the scandal.

3. The Metropolitan Police - Another complicating factor is the Met Police’s role in the scandal. In the original review of the scandal, the Met were the ones who decided there was no case on phone hacking - which has subsequently been founded wrong. Apparently the police were too keen for secret payouts and money in their pocket to worry about issuing a sense of justice, and two senior officers and commissioners have subsequently quit their posts in response to the condemnation from the media, government and public.

4. The Press - Undoubtedly, this hasn’t come at a worse time for the newspaper industry. With declining profits and the rise of the internet, anymore problems could be considered a ticking time bomb for the industry - which is possibly why the effects of the phone hacking could prove a mighty blow for the industry. Already, the scandal has led to other papers, including The Sun (owned by, yes you guessed it, Rupert Murdoch), The Mirror and the Daily Mail being linked to the scandal - and with the power of companies providing revenue for the newspapers, who ultimately played the biggest factor in the closure of the News of the World, could another newspaper fall in the near future? In addition, an even bigger issue is the matter of self-regulation. The papers ultimately look after themselves, providing them with the freedom they wish for - another factor now under scrutiny. The PCC, the Press Complaints Commission, who should have been watching over the News of the World and other companies to that matter, did not do their job and, like News International/ Corporation, are under immense scrutiny and a possible closure in the upcoming enquiry.

5. The Victims - The biggest party who really are just innocent victims in this shocking story and perhaps the people the press and media organisations forget about. Sienna Miller, Andy Gray, Gordon Brown, Milly Dowler, Prince William, families of those who died in the 7/7 bombings and hundreds of others who have all fallen fowl to the hacking and publication of their personal and intimate details which should not have been published. Despite the lawsuits, the money settlements and A4 apologies printed, they are still the ones innocently exploited for the sake of a few dirty tabloid articles and money in the pockets of guilty editors.

So what happens now?

Well one thing for sure, this is not going to go away quietly. The upcoming enquiry and review of the case into the company, the editors, the police and the reporters; hastily arranged by an under-pressure PM last month in front of a glitzy press conference, is something that is not going to be over in a few weeks - in fact, I would predict the end of the year when we might get a result. It’s going to be complicated no doubt, and strenuous, and lots of finger pointing and blame are going to be passed between parties - but hopefully, if the enquiry works, the results will not only provide the victims with a sense of justice, but put a stop to the illegal undertakings of News International and help provide a positive outcome for the Newspaper Industry.
As for News Corporation and the Murdoch’s, I expect a rather turbulent few months for him. With his bid for control at BSkyB now vanished to thin air, and with his 39% stake also under scrutiny, along with his assets in other companies and in other countries, not to mention his families stance and condemnation, the Mr Nasty media title has a new master at the helm (apologies to Simon Cowell). Although the public do not really love to hate him, I believe it is a simple hate thing - judging by the recent ‘Pie in the Face’ incident that resulted in laughs and jeers, not criticism from the public. Could be worse - could be cold porridge instead, by the way things are going!

And the government? Well the sooner this case disappears, the sooner the smile returns to David Cameron’s face. His role in it all seems to be one that in the next few weeks, we will get to know a little bit more about - and you never know, we might see another departure in the papers.

(Pictures Courtesy of Wikipedia)