Andy Coulson has gone, now let's see News International held to account

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

The PCC, the Telegraph and Vince Cable

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