By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent
On 11 Feb 2012 the “hackgate” cancer besetting Rupert Murdoch’s media empire metastasized.
Damage from revelations concerning hacking at the News of the World had appeared under control, if not in total remission, following its demise. The Parliamentary select committee ceased its inquiry. The Leveson hearing spread the pain, embarrassment, and most importantly, the attention across all of Fleet Street. Murdoch receded from center stage.
But in the meantime 130 police investigators were quietly sifting through 300 million emails turned over to them by News International’s internal review body, as well as investigating spin off leads.
11 Feb 2012 big news shook journalism. It virtually exploded across Twitter. Subsequently it found its way into the media of both the UK and US. Early the morning of the 11th of February police dramatically arrested 8 persons in connection with allegations of public official corruption. The public officials included not only police, but 1 Ministry of Defence civilian and 1 serving military officer.
In the UK police do not release names pending an actual decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to charge. But what the police did release was explosive. It was all tied to The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship newspaper in the UK. These arrests brought the total of Sun journalists arrested to 10. The arrestees included award winning and senior journalists and editors.
The hackgate scandal had already claimed every major figure at News of the World, including Andy Coulson (then the Prime Minister’s spin doctor) and Rebecca Brooks Wade (who was editor at both News of the World and The Sun). It may still claim James Murdoch, one of Rupert Murdoch’s sons, if prosecutors conclude he misled Parliament in testimony before a select committee.
Once again the focus of public attention shifted to Rupert Murdoch and the news empire that has so long dominated the journalistic and political scenes in the UK (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the US).
Reaction among Sun journalists was swift. Across the staff, although they had not been personally arrested or accused, Sun journalists reacted with obvious defensiveness, anger and fear. Twitter buzzed with rumours of wholesale “civil war” between journalists and management. Major newspapers confirmed those rumours in days to come in an unaccustomed airing of journalistic angst.
Rupert Murdoch reacted with equal swiftness, and specifically to the unrest. The Sun has been his flagship paper, the paper by which he had first penetrated the UK market, the paper of largest circulation in the UK. Murdoch announced he would head to London to personally take charge of sorting out the crisis.
Arriving 17 Feb, Murdoch immediately sent an email to staff; then met with them. The email was in two obvious parts. The first part was Murdoch to his troops. The second part was lawyer speak, explaining why News Corp had to cooperate with the investigation. The Murdoch bit sought to unreservedly assure staff that those arrested would be allowed to return to work, that he would stand by them, that he would not close The Sun as he had the News of the World. In fact, he planned to unveil a Sunday edition in the near future. The second bit - nevertheless expressed in lawyer speak - demonstrated corporate determination to cooperate fully with the investigation. Murdoch promised to remain in London for the duration to lead The Sun’s “fight back” amid rumours of a pending major announcement by the Met (Scotland Yard) the weekend of the 17th.
Not the Seventh Cavalry
Not everyone was satisfied. Not everyone saw Murdoch’s swoop into town aboard his personal jet as the 7th Cavalry coming to the rescue. Many were dissatisfied and/or singularly unimpressed.
The Guardian, certainly not Murdoch’s greatest fan, helpfully pointed out to Murdoch’s staff the legal “errors” in Murdoch’s email explanation as to why team Murdoch turned over journalists and sources to the authorities.
CALSTRS, a major stockholder, confirmed in a statement carried by Channel 4 News that CALSTRS was not convinced News International should continue to operate The Sun, but they were convinced that whether or not News International did was a decision for the board of directors not Mr. Murdoch.
The Guardian and CALSTRS were not alone.
Many on the staff of The Sun were not mollified. According to fellow journalists on Twitter, staff remain upset that the rules of the game changed. Activity that had been at least tacitly sanctioned could now bring criminal charges and disgrace. These journalists felt more than thought that Murdoch “fed the journalists and their sources to the wolves” in, they reasoned, an effort to save Murdoch’s own power and influence.
Martin Wolf, Murdoch’s biographer, speaking to several media outlets, renewed his prediction that the end was at hand for the Murdoch empire, at least in the UK. Wolf argues that events are not in Murdoch’s control, but Murdoch seems to be under the delusion he can control them.
Andrew Neil, formerly editor of The Times, also puts Murdoch’s chances of rescuing The Sun as slim. Neil characterized Murdoch’s sweep into town and grand announcement as a temporary “holding” action.
The New York Times, like an historian observing an ancient imperial court or the old Soviet Politburo, took an interest in who came along in the Murdoch train - and who did not. James was out and Lachlan, Murdoch’s eldest son, was in. Others echoed the observation.
Some who cover this topic wrote almost sentimentally of the fall of the Murdoch Empire from political power, already writing the empire’s epitaph.
In the US - When will "considering" become "doing?"
Meanwhile, authorities in the United States reputedly are considering an investigation of News Corp. under the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act. A story that somewhat predates the latest events, one does wonder when considering will become doing.
As of the writing of this article 19 Feb, the rumoured big announcement from the Met has not been forthcoming. Perhaps that is just as well. Not just because it may offer me another sequel. Most significantly, the focus on Murdoch as much masks what is important as illuminates it. While it is surely necessary to hold Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch empire accountable for their behaviour, it is at least as important not to let one powerful man’s dramatic battle hijack the broader issues of press practices. Events equally (if less dramatically) demonstrate a need for systemic change, not just sacrificial goats.
During the Leveson Hearing journalist and editor after journalist and editor testified there was no need for state regulation, indeed it is dangerous. They argued in the dock and in editorials that all the hackgate attention has forever altered press culture. The bad practices have been stopped. Hackgate would never be replicated.
But just last week dozens of journalists, and not just from The Sun, reacted with defensiveness, fear and anger to the arrests of the 10 Sun journalists. The Sun journalists engaged in a very public “civil war” with management, decrying the revelation of sources and journalists to the authorities. Does that suggest a reformed press?
Journalists and editors testifying at Leveson argued that the public's need to know justified hacking, use of private investigators and payments to the police. Yet their own reaction to disclosure of the practices reveals an awareness of their illegality and ethical questionableness.
Both sets of comments sound defensive to the non-journalist. They suggest that rather than reformed, a fair many journalists consider themselves the wronged, punished and deterred from a worthy purpose.
This issue is of the utmost importance.
It is important because journalists are supposed to protect us from corruption not instigate it.
It is also important because of the revolving door between public office, the press, and “communications” managers. Journalists become Press Officers, Press Officers become PR Consultants, PR consultants and Press Officers become journalists. At least one former PR Consultant is now Prime Minister and his Education Secretary was a journalist for Murdoch’s Times.
PR consultants work for “charities” influencing public policy, plant articles that are carried in the media as a basis of ostensibly objective “stories. It is a major industry with demonstrable major impacts on public life.
As journalists, their commentary creates a below conscious web of consensus as to what is true and what is false in public life. Yet they are also at any given time the spin makers.
Andy Coulson leaves News of the World and becomes the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary. Lord Freud, Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law, leads the charge in the House of Lords for the Prime Minister’s controversial and disability demeaning welfare reform package. The wife of the current Press Secretary, Craig Oliver, is a prime time presenter on BBC news, relating stories concerning the operation of her husband’s employer. Craig Oliver himself worked for BBC News before becoming Press Secretary.
The point is not that these individuals are corrupt. The point is it is vital to maintain the integrity of such an integrated system, a system on which we all depend for our perception of reality.
PR devices created and promoted by graduates of this revolving door influence our perception of reality. News media increasingly rely on “placed” pieces from “astroturf” organizations and shadowy “charities” with strong ties to politicians. Many of the pieces I have written for WhirledView have sought to bring these connections into the public eye.
It is not an exaggeration to say the current situation risks the fox in charge of the hen house. Abuse and corruption grow in dark places where transactions are hidden rather than transparent and power is exercised unchecked. The Leveson Hearing and the most recent arrests of Sun journalists have made clear how substantial the risk is.
The question remains: how to regulate this phenomenon?
But the question in a free society remains, how to regulate this phenomenon? It is clear self-regulation has been tried and failed miserably in the UK. On the other hand a free society cannot accept a priori censorship of speech. We need an active, engaged, and critical press. But neither can a free society tolerate the perversion of this principle to cover corruption and the ruthless exercise of unchecked leverage over those in whom we entrust power.
What is the answer?
For me Leveson has demonstrated the answer. Abuse and corruption grow in dark places. Bringing those practices into the harsh light of public scrutiny and repugnance has had a beneficial if, I believe, temporary impact. The answer, it appears to me, is to make the temporary long term. Make the Leveson process routine. Expand its role to cover the exposure of corrupt practices across the entire revolving door. In short, make the Leveson process an investigative reporter.
Previous related posts on WhirledView by John C. Dyer:
"The Reign of the Stateswoman Queen Turns 60 as Britain Suffers A Winter of Discord," February 2012.
"Oh What a Web We Weave as Friends Take Care of Friends with PublicFunds," February 2012.
"What do coalition education secretary and labour MP Chris Bryant have in common?" January 2012
"The Horror the Horror the Horror the Leveson Committee Exposes the Damage Caused by the Unleashed Animal," November 2011.
