Global Journalism Review
Murdock reporter arrested
Rupert’s royal hack and the royal phone
tap
|
The arrest of the News of the World’s royal reporter,
in connection with allegations of royal phone tapping, is another blow to the
image of Only a week ago the Prime
Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, was taking a break from helping the US
President to settle a war in the Middle East to fly from Washington to Los
Angeles to pay homage at the court of
Mogul Murdoch (writes O’D.Moore). As the police inquiries
leading to yesterday’s arrest began three months ago, it is now being
suggested that Mr Murdoch already had the story in his files while entertaining
Mr Blair, but kept quiet about it so as not to spoil the important networking
occasion in California.
No doubt in the
same file, the Australian-American tycoon has details of other recent
reverses for the paper’s investigative team, and especially for its ace
investigator, the Fake Sheikh, Mazher Mahmood, Last
month, three men were acquitted of trying to buy “red mercury”, an invented
substance that supposedly can be used in radioactive bombs, after a trial
that followed a News of the World
“exclusive” on the trio. Mr Mahmood gave evidence, but during a trial that cost an
estimated £1 million, the three men successfully argued that they had been
trapped in a sting operation. Only a week ago,
the paper lost an even more sensational libel
case brought by Tommy Sheridan, a Scottish socialist politician, who was
awarded £200,000 after a jury ruled by 7-4 that sexual allegations published
by the Scottish edition of the paper were unfounded. Yesterday’s
arrest of the NoW’s royal correspondent, Clive Goodman,and two other men took
place under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the law
governing the security of communications.
Tapping phones also falls foul of the Press Complaint’s Commission’s
Code governing journalistic standards. Clause 10,
covering the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge, says that the
"press must not seek to obtain or publish" material obtained by
"intercepting private or mobile telephone calls". The body does make
an exception on public interest grounds, but the bar for this defence is set
deliberately high. In reality, the
PCC rarely rules on Clause 10. The
last major complaint was in 2002, when Peter Foster, who had been close to
Cherie Blair, successfully appealed against the Sun, which published details of a phone conversation
involving his mother. The PCC felt that the transcript did not break enough
new ground to justify its publication. The paper’s
managers are no doubt happy to report that it remains popular with
readers. It sold 3.48 million copies
in June, over a million more than its nearest rival, the Mail on Sunday. If convicted,
the royal correspondent and the other two individuals could face up to two
years in jail. Only the law enforcement agencies have the right to intercept
communications. The question always
raised in these cases is whether or not there is a public-interest
defence. Watch this space. At last,
the tabloids' dirty secret is exposed
The arrest of the News of the World's royal editor, Clive Goodman, has been greeted by a
media feeding frenzy (writes Roy Greenslade). I have been interviewed a dozen times today
by TV, radio and foreign news agency correspondents and could, if I was so
minded, have done a dozen more. There are, of course, more pressing matters,
not least the conflict in the That said, the frenzy of
interest does have merit because - irrespective of whether Goodman is found to have done
anything illegal - this story does highlight, at last, one of Fleet Street's
dirtiest secrets….. The obtaining of information
about people's telephone calls is not confined to the News of the World. Many papers pay informants to discover phone
records, the content of text messages and the recordings of voicemails. And
it is considered, within those papers, as routine stuff. Roy Greenslade is Professor of Journalism at
City University, ______________________________________________________________________________ |
Clout over Blair government
Murdoch’s classic move on Channel Five
Those who now talk of
Rupert Murdoch’s apparent intention to switch his support from Prime
Minister Blair to Tory contender David Cameron in the next election have been reminded
of the extent to which the Australian-American used his Blair connection from
the day of Labour’s return to power with
a massive majority in 1997 (writes O.L.D.
Moore).
A special report in The Guardian by David Leigh and Rob Evans showed
that Freedom of Information files revealed how Murdoch has been
wielding extensive lobbying clout over the Blair government. He secured private reassurances from
ministers during heavy lobbying that he would be able to buy Channel Five if he
wanted to, according to partly censored documents released under FoI by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell.
Representatives of the Murdoch
empire “were able to lobby ministers six times in a
crucial five-month period when an important bill was passing through
parliament. Citizens' groups have said they were unable to get similar
face-to-face access to ministers.”
There two writers looked at
the longstanding speculation that Murdoch wanted to buy Five, although he had
denied it. They say his opponents feared
that he would exert too much power if he was able to own a terrestrial channel
as well as the satellite station Sky.
“In what was called the
‘Murdoch clause’, ministers proposed to relax the rules and allow newspaper
owners to buy terrestrial television channels.
Campaigners have alleged the clause was inserted by
The bill became law in July
2003. The released documents showed that
as the bill started to go through the Commons in 2003, Murdoch's lobbyists
stepped up pressure on ministers. “They wanted to confirm their free hand to
take over other papers and TV stations.”
The documents showed that Les
Hinton, the chief executive of News International, led a group of newspaper
industry executives who met Ms Jowell on February 13.
Top of the agenda were proposals in the bill to reform the rules under which
newspaper owners could buy other papers.
The Guardian article said that ten days later, on February 24, “Ms Jowell
went to a News International drinks party for the outgoing Sun editor, David Yelland. Shortly afterwards, she had a private lunch with
Mr Hinton, on March 5. On April 2, three Sky executives met Ms Jowell to set out their concerns about the bill. Sky's
chief executive, Tony Ball, head of government affairs, Sheila Cassells, and lawyer Deanna Bates presented Ms Jowell with a list of their worries.”
The writers continue: “The Sky
executives were troubled about one of the main clauses of the bill which
imposed a specific duty on the new regulator, Ofcom,
to maintain a diverse range of owners of television and radio stations. According to the briefing papers prepared
before the meeting by Ms Jowell's officials, Sky ‘are querying whether this duty could be used to block the
government's liberalisation of cross-media ownership rules or to block a merger
of licensees’".
Ms Jowell
was advised to reassure the Sky executives that there would be no impediment to
buying Five. "Ofcom will not be able to block
mergers by virtue of this duty nor will it be able to make a 'U-turn' on the
Channel Five ownership policy. In other words, it will not be allowed to
reinstate the ownership rules preventing Channel Five licences to be held by
newspaper proprietors."
The Guardian article
continued: “The partially censored minutes of the meeting say: ‘The secretary
of state made it clear this is not our intention, and said we would be happy to
say so in parliament.’ The documents
also show that at the April meeting, Sky protested at government plans to
charge fees for registering satellite broadcasters in the same way as
terrestrial television and radio stations.
In May, Ms Jowell wrote personally to Mr Ball
answering several points that he had raised in the meeting. She again reassured
him that ‘there is no intention that [the clause] could be used to block a
merger’".
When they approached Sky, the
company said that the executives were merely "seeking clarification"
of the government's plans, adding : "We have
stated then and since that Sky is not intending to buy Channel Five. We are
very insistent on that point."
Granville Williams, of the
Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, said after studying the files that
Sky's lobbying showed "they certainly do have some interest in the
acquisition of Channel Five, although they know that it would be foolish to
state this publicly until they are ready to make a move".
Protected
by Norton Anti-Virus System
Global Journalism
Review Copyright 1998-2006 Brennan Publications