A glaring double standard is at work here. As Davies points out, every newspaper bangs the drum about law and order. And yet, supposing what he says is correct, most newspapers seem to regard themselves as above the law. If any commercial organisation or government department were guilty of the kind of criminal conspiracy to uncover personal details about private citizens that comes as second nature to newspapers, there would have been a tremendous scandal. Indeed when the Inland Revenue incompetently but innocently lost details concerning the tax records of millions of citizens, the ensuing row went on for weeks. The way newspapers ferret out private information from government and commercial databases is far more sinister and threatening, and yet it is never publicly discussed.
In short, many newspapermen are exempt from the moral and legal restraints that apply to ordinary people. Andy Coulson, now communications director of the Conservative party, is a case in point. For several years Coulson was editor of the News of the World. Throughout this time the paper used deception and bribery in order to generate stories. Most notoriously, the paper was paying huge sums to intercept telephone messages involving members of the royal family. Eventually the paper’s royal correspondent was jailed, and Coulson made the prudent decision to resign. David Cameron hired the wretched Coulson a few months later, apparently accepting that the former editor of the News of the World knew nothing of the illegal techniques that lay behind so many of his paper’s best stories.
It is unfair to single out Coulson. Peter Stothard, editor of the Times, occupied the most respectable position in British journalism. Yet, according to this book, his paper systematically used information secured through illegal methods, including hacking into bank accounts and the bribery of a federal agent in the United States. The agent eventually went to jail, while Stothard became a cherished ally of Tony Blair and secured a knighthood. One could go on and on.




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