08 Apr 11 | Uncategorized
News International’s apology over phone hacking, welcome and overdue as it is, cannot “draw a line” under phone hacking.
This gesture, and the settlement of some of the private claims for breach of privacy by hacking victims, must not bring to a halt the process of exposing the facts, because so far we have only seen a small fraction of those facts. The litigants and their lawyers have transformed our understanding of what happened by their relentless demands for documents from the police and the company, but we need that process to continue.
As the former Tory Cabinet minister, Lord Fowler, has said, only a public inquiry will get to the bottom of this. That’s what it will take to address the full breadth of issues at stake, from the role of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to the relationships between News International and government, and from the sinister silence of the rest of the tabloid press to the conduct of senior company executives right up to Rupert Murdoch himself. Who was doing this? Who knew? When? Was there a cover-up? What was the role of the phone companies? Who was implicated? We need an exhaustive investigation.
What we are dealing with here, after all, appears to have been a sustained assault on the privacy of dozens and possibly hundreds of people, from royalty to Cabinet ministers, and from film actors and sportsmen to journalists and ordinary private citizens. We still have no idea of its full extent — whether, for example, other newspapers were engaged in the same practices. All this has important national security implications and raises big questions about how Britain is governed. And as with Watergate, the crime may have been bad, but the sequel was worse.
So far as News International executives are concerned, they must not be allowed to escape appropriate public scrutiny. In admitting, by implication at least, that Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire were not the only News of the World employees engaged in illegally accessing people’s voicemails, they formally put to rest the “single rogue reporter” defence they sustained from 2007 until this January. But they must now be forced to explain themselves properly, not just in a brief, slick corporate statement, but one by one in an inquiry witness box, under cross-examination from leading barristers.
How, for example, do they now justify the company’s oft-repeated claim that, back in 2006-7, it thoroughly investigated the affair, that it deployed a top firm of white-collar fraud experts on the task, that it interrogated its own reporters and sifted through thousands of emails, and that the failure of these Herculean efforts proved its innocence?
Colin Myler, the paper’s editor, told the Press Complaints Commission in 2007 and the House of Commons Select Committee on the media in 2009 that he personally had led the investigation. Les Hinton, now the CEO of the Wall Street Journal, twice assured MPs that this investigation had been thorough. Tom Crone, head of legal affairs at News Group Newspapers, and Stuart Kuttner, former managing editor of the News of the World, helped to make the same case.
It doesn’t end there. James Murdoch, now deputy chief operating officer of News Corporation, approved a secret £700,000 payout to Gordon Taylor which prevented the public from learning important information about hacking, and Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News International who refused to testify before MPs, should also account for her role. Are all these people really fit to hold senior positions in a leading public company? We should find out.
And in the background now is Andy Coulson, former editor of the paper and former media adviser to David Cameron. He told MPs he knew nothing of phone hacking, and repeated the assertion under oath in a court of law. It is now acknowledged that his ignorance was not limited to what his royal editor was up to. So just how extensive was it?
We need an inquiry. Indeed if we don’t have one, if we let it lie on the strength of a few million in compensation, we are accepting that there is no kind of trouble that Rupert Murdoch and his company can’t buy their way out of.
READ ALL OF BRIAN CATHCART’S BRILLIANT ANALYSIS OF THE PHONEHACKING SCANDAL HERE
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
27 Jan 11 | Uncategorized
If it is true that News International is confronting the phone hacking scandal with a new zeal, we can only welcome it. The pity is that it has taken four and a half years to reach this point, not least because, as any detective or criminal lawyer will confirm, in that period useful evidence is likely to have been lost.
This makes it all the more important that, whatever other investigations may be taking place, there should also be a proper inquiry into how the company conducted itself between the arrest of its royal editor in August 2006 and the onset of this new zeal. A key concern must be the repeated assurances given by company executives that in this long interval they did everything in their power to track down any evidence that anyone on their staff other than Clive Goodman might have been involved in phone hacking.
Les Hinton, former chief executive of News International, gave such an assurance to the Commons select committee on the media in 2007. He repeated it to MPs in 2009. Colin Myler, the editor of the News of the World, gave similar assurances; so did Tom Crone, his legal affairs director, and so did Andy Coulson, editor at the time of Goodman’s arrest. You can read what they said in the oral and written evidence section of the committee’s report here.
That evidence raises a lot of questions. To take a simple example, a point made by Myler and repeated by Hinton was that the internal investigation involved examining 2,500 emails. The implication was that this showed thoroughness, but 2,500 emails in an organisation like the News of the World must be a drop in the ocean. One reporter might receive 2,500 emails in a matter of weeks. So why were only 2,500 emails examined back in 2006-7?
More generally, there is the role of the solicitors, Burton Copeland. Coulson said (Q1719) he brought them in very quickly to find out “what the hell had gone on” and gave them everything they needed. Crone pointed out to MPs (Q1388) that they were “probably the leading firm in this country for white collar fraud”. That sounds very vigorous and thorough. You might infer that this top firm went in and, with full management support, carried out a top-class internal investigation, leaving no stone unturned.
But police evidence to the MPs left a very different impression of Burton Copeland’s role. Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams, in a number of answers (see Q2010) portrayed the firm, not as independent investigators or as facilitators for the police investigation, but as lawyers acting in defence of the company’s interests, and he implied that they were a good deal less helpful than the police hoped.
A subsequent written submission (Nov 2009, Q6) by Assistant Commissioner John Yates put it bluntly:
News of the World instructed lawyers to respond to our requests for disclosure and they took a robust legal approach to our requests and provided material strictly based on the evidence against Goodman and Mulcaire.
So that’s another question. Were Burton Copeland there as independent crimebusters called in by the company to track down any possible traces of wrongdoing, as News International executives told MPs, or were they solicitors representing the corporate interest in unwelcome dealings with the police? Whatever it is that they were tasked to do, I’m sure the firm did it professionally and ethically, but we need to know.
This is not a matter of idle historical interest. For one thing, it is reported that Burton Copeland are acting for News International in this matter again today. More fundamentally, questions of this kind are crucial to the public understanding of News International’s conduct and they may have a bearing on the evidence that is available to police today.
So who is going to ask these questions? So far as I can tell they are not within the remit of the new CPS and Met investigations, and we are surely not relying on Rupert Murdoch or the Press Complaints Commission to ask them. The case for a public inquiry gets stronger and stronger.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University and tweets at @BrianCathcart
21 Jan 11 | Uncategorized
Why has Andy Coulson resigned now, after clinging on so long, and just days after David Cameron backed him? If his position has suddenly become untenable it is hardly just because, as he put it, the spokesman needs a spokesman. They could afford a line of 20 of those.
One of the reasons must be the simple one that the “one rogue” defence of his time at the News of the World has collapsed. The suspension of senior news executive Ian Edmondson and the naming of one other former news editor in court documents related to alleged phone hacking have left News International struggling for a form of words to shore up its position. And all the time the lawsuits from angry celebrities continue to pile up.
But you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask whether the future of BSkyB is as important in the balance of factors here as the question of how many people still believe Coulson could have failed to know members of his staff were hacking phones.
James and Rupert Murdoch are determined to buy the shares in BSkyB that they don’t already own. It is the springboard for their UK business strategy over the next ten years and compared to this the fates of Andy Coulson and a bunch of News of the World hacks probably doesn’t add up to much.
The Murdochs don’t usually care much about public opinion either, but they need political blessing for the BSkyB deal to go through. In this context the embarrassment of constant stories about hacking (even though most of the press has shabbily ignored them) is most unwelcome, and there is no doubt that Coulson’s presence at the heart of government has made that worse.
Now he’s gone, will the TV deal be easier to pull off? Only if we’re all suckers.
So bad has the phone hacking scandal become that the whole News International hierarchy has questions to answer, and that includes not only Rebekah Brooks but James Murdoch himself — for one thing, he personally approved the six-figure settlement payment to Gordon Taylor which was prompted by the discovery of that infamous bunch of hacked transcripts marked “for Neville”.
If James Murdoch wants to convince us that his company should be able to own BSkyB outright, with all the monopolistic opportunities that affords, then he needs to convince us that the company he already runs is a clean one. And before that can happen we need to see what happens to Sienna Miller, Chris Tarrant, Andy Gray, Steve Coogan and the host of others who are in the courts claiming that Murdoch’s paper breached their privacy.
Read more Brian Cathcart on Metgate here, here, here, here, here and here
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and tweets at @BrianCathcart
14 Jan 11 | Uncategorized
The Press Complaints Commission wants us to think it has renewed itself. That it is no longer the feeble outfit that was derided for doing nothing about the McCann scandal and thinking everything was fine at the News of the World. It has new people in charge, it has carried out a governance review and its code of conduct for journalists is being revised. It’s also Tweeting to draw attention to how proactive it is.
So, is the investigation it has just announced into last month’s Daily Telegraph sting against the Liberal Democrats evidence of a new assertiveness? There’s a hint in their press release that they want us to think so, where they say: “The PCC was contacted by around 200 members of the public on this subject, and proactively sought the comments of party representatives.” That word “proactive” again: it is code for “we don’t just sit here waiting for complaints to come to us”.
Now they have received a formal complaint from the Lib Dem president, Tim Farron, alleging that the Telegraph breached the PCC editors’ code rules on use of subterfuge, and in consequence have launched their investigation.
It will be an interesting case. You might argue that the Telegraph uncovered something that was in the public interest in Vince Cable’s remarks (to reporters posing as constituents) about the Murdoch media. But then you have to note that the Telegraph, for reasons of its own, didn’t actually intend to publish that story.
The real issue, however, is likely to be this: before they visited the MPs’ surgeries, and before they turned on their hidden recorders, did the Telegraph journalists have an idea of what they were going to hear? Did they have reason to believe, for example, that Cable would tell them what he told them? If not, then they were merely fishing, and in the past the PCC has taken the view that newspapers are not justified in lying to law-abiding people and secretly recording them just to see what they might get out of it.
It is obviously a big case for the PCC. A finding against the Telegraph will be unpopular in the industry that pays the PCC’s bills and would doubtless be presented as bad for journalistic freedom. A finding that absolves the Telegraph will be unpopular with MPs, who already believe the PCC is wimpish and toothless. It’s good to see this tackled, and we watch with interest.
But to come back to the opening point: does the launching of this investigation reveal a new and assertive PCC? Maybe it’s a good sign, but it’s not convincing. The Commission’s rules allow it to investigate an issue of concern on its own authority, without waiting for — or soliciting, or negotiating — a complaint from anyone, victim or otherwise. It doesn’t do that, and it hasn’t done it here.
It has been proactive in only a limited sense since in the end the authority and initiative for the investigation have been carefully located with the LibDems. Maybe that’s appropriate in this case, but it means this can’t be described as a real flexing of muscles by a reformed PCC. It’s complaints processing — what they always did.
Until we see it being seriously proactive, elbowing its way into difficult areas of public concern and showing initiative and authority, the PCC’s claim to the role of serious industry regulator and its claim that it upholds standards in anything more than an indirect and intangible way will remain weak.
Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University London, he tweets @BrianCathcart
