But newspapers have an unwritten compact that they never, under any circumstances, expose each other — one reason why Robert Maxwell and Conrad Black remained in business for so long. Over the last few decades only Private Eye (which is serialising this book — presumably no paper would do so) has made it its business to draw attention to press corruption and hypocrisy.
This code of omerta is very widespread. Davies shows that no paper will ever expose the illegal practices of rivals because they are all at it. For example, newspapers are able to obtain, within minutes, possession of a wealth of personal data about British citizens — credit-card statements, bank statements, driving licence details, ex-directory phone numbers, itemised telephone billing etc. Davies shows that it is not just tabloids that do this. So-called broadsheets are also guilty.
All this information is obtained through bribery, trickery and deception. As a whole, newspapers are careful not to carry out this furtive work themselves. It is sub-contracted to third parties. Davies claims, for example, that the Sunday Times at one stage hired a reporter on the explicit basis he was not on the paper’s books. ‘The object was for him to handle the dark arts,’ asserts Davies, ‘and just in case he got caught doing something illegal, they could deny their connection to him’.
The drive to acquire intimate details concerning British citizens has given rise to a cottage industry based around the illegal acquisition of personal information. It is inhabited by bent policemen, phone- tappers, private investigators, professional conmen, civil servants on the take, Benji the Binman (who famously made a living sifting through celebrity dustbins) and so forth.
Nick Davies expertly guides the reader through this horrible, scary, illicit world. I had never before realised what a high proportion of newspaper ‘scoops’ — from the Sunday Mirror exposure of David Mellor’s affair with Antonia de Sancha to the majority of royal stories — rely, innocently or otherwise, on criminal conduct somewhere along the chain.
Occasionally these practices come to light. For example, in 2006 a private investigator, caught blagging information out of British Telecom, was charged and convicted. With the exception of a small story on the Guardian website, no newspaper reported this event, let alone exposed the sordid underworld that lay behind it.




Comments
Rory Connor
April 10th, 2008 10:27pmIn Ireland I am aware of cases where the media published false allegations of child abuse (or covering up child abuse) against 8 Bishops. One of the most notorious individuals has been Religious Affairs correspondent for 2 Irish newspapers and his lies about Archbishop McQuaid were serialised by The Sunday Times. (It was after that he got his second Religious Affairs job.) Another claim helped bring down a Government.
As soon as the lies were exposed the stories sank like a shot and most are now forgotten.
Report this comment
David Martin
March 14th, 2008 4:51pm"The tyranny that it proposes to exercise over people's private lives seems to me to be quite extraordinary. The fact is, that the public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesmanlike habits, supplies their demands. In centuries before ours the public nailed the ears of journalists to the pump. That was quite hideous. In this century journalists have nailed their own ears to the keyhole. That is much worse." Oscar Wilde - and one could follow him with the well known quotes from Belloc, Baldwin and Bevan. I'm sure Davies's book is well worth having, but can there be any readers of the Spectator innocent enough to believe that the only connection between the press and prostitution is that both begin with the same letter?
Report this comment
Adrian Burton
February 21st, 2008 7:52pmI havent read the book yet, (cant wait actually)though Nicks article published in december (http://www.mwaw.net/2007/12/08/davies/) was extremely interesting.. just as fascinating, is a blog post by Mark Borkowski (Borkowski PR) which answers a lot of Davies' accusations aimed at the PR industry. well worth looking up http://www.markborkowski.com/?p=7345
Report this comment
Lucy Bermingham
February 14th, 2008 10:08amThe thrust of much of this book is that journalists are lazy and are spoonfed stuff and don't check the facts. One look at the chapter on the NatWest Three shows quite clearly that Davies has done exactly that.
Report this comment
Ann Taylor
February 12th, 2008 5:01pmI have ordered the book, I want to read it for myself before passing comment. And is Nick Davies telling the truth? or is it just a ruse to make us buy the book? Presonally I don't buy national newspapers - haven't since they started paying criminals for their stories, I have better uses for my money.
Report this comment
Alison Weston
February 11th, 2008 10:19amI have yet to read the book but it would appear to confirm my fear(and that of a great number of other people) that the manipulation of the press by unscrupulous journalists has been around for a long time. The great damage done by these people - didn't the genocide in Ruwanda come about as a result of incitement by a couple of journos, and just lately the carnage in Kenya? The clean up of the press cannot come too soon.
Report this comment
John Lea
February 2nd, 2008 8:56pmFirst para - I was brought up to believe that the word 'media' is a plural - 'medium' being, of course, the plural. Has this changed since the long-ago years of my youth?
Report this comment