The British print media are revered and reviled at the same time. At one end of the spectrum is The Guardian, the vanguard of serious journalism, a quality daily with few equals anywhere in the world. The Financial Times is another beacon of quality and seriousness, lean and focused as only a single-topic daily can be. The Times and The Independent aren't too bad either but have been slipping in recent years. They suffer, respectively, from an unqualified owner (Murdoch) and editorial bias that leans just a bit too far for my taste. These four are the only newspapers that I buy from time to time.
At the other end of the spectrum are The Sun, The Daily Mail and other members of the yellow press, simplistic rags with big headlines and few content, notorious for sensational stories, boobs on page 3 and celebrity gossip. They are populist in their editorial opinion and identifiably politically aligned. It's probably a bit harsh to say that they are the newspapers for those who can't read, but I wouldn't touch them even if they were free. (I've bought the Mail once when it was bundled with The Graduate but tossed it unread.) These newspapers are so bad it's hard to believe.
But it's not only that they are bad, it's also their entire business model that's questionable. They specialize in digging up embarrassing stories and exposing the private lives of anyone from celebrities to the unsuspecting granny next door. People love them. Their readership is huge. And no one asks how they get the material they then sensationalize.
No one asks but the truth came to light anyway. Over the last few years, the Sunday-only News of the World has been in deep trouble for hacking into cell phone mailboxes of various celebrities and royals. There was a police investigation (which might or might not have been obstructed), an editor resigned (and became the prime minister's communications director later), apologies were muttered. The public professed to be appalled but continued to buy the newspaper. Circulation remained at about 2.6 million copies. What the News was caught doing was illegal but seemed a sensible way of getting information from reclusive people, information that the public was keen on getting.
This week a twist was added to a saga that has been going since at least 2007. The Guardian reported that the News hacked into the mailbox of a missing girl that was later found to be murdered and into the mailboxes of relatives of some of the victims of the terror attacks on London's tube and buses six years ago. Tears flow, the public is horrified, politicians speak out against disgraceful actions, and advertisers end their contracts with the paper, but all I can see is stinking hypocrisy.
Everyone should know how tabloids work. No one should be surprised that they act unethically by default. Virtue is not their creed and journalism not exactly what they do. If you want to get worked up about something, why not target the more than two million freaks that buy this rag, thus perpetuating their strategy. It's their readers that call for ever more lurid and sensationalist stories.
Don't misinterpret my ranting. What the newspaper did was and is wrong and despicable, but it's systemically wrong and isn't any wronger now. Tabloid journalism is the scandal, not a particular hacked mailbox, and Prime Minister David Cameron's outrage that, "We are no longer talking about politicians and celebrities, we are talking about murder victims, potentially terrorist victims, having their phones hacked into." is misguided. This is not the scandal.
Phone hacking is illegal, even when it targets celebrities and politicians. The problem is that it makes good business sense for a tabloid. The incentives are high and potential punishment is low. If there is agreement in society that what has happened isn't acceptable, the laws that exist have to be enforced, and the penalties need to be increased. It's not enough that an editor is sacked while the company behind him rambles on. The true scandal is that the News of the World is still in business.
3 comments:
lol@ boobs on page 3
you could take that two ways
What could be the second way? It was The Sun that started putting the photo of a half-naked girl on page 3 in the late 70s. It boosted their circulation like they would have never thought.
I didn't know they had literal boobs as in breasts. I thought it was boobs as in fools!
Post a Comment