Search This Blog

Sunday, July 10, 2011

notw

today was the day the news of the world closed.

now i am no expert, which in the current climate means that i am perfectly capable of chatting about this as if i know what i am talking about (get me on the tv now), but the closing of the news of the world is on the one hand a feeble gesture and on the other hand a sign of hard headed pragmatism.

why is it a feeble gesture? simply because it has all been wrapped up with how sorry they are for stepping over the line. yet many of the people who are being ‘punished’ by the closing of the paper had nothing to do with the hacking of various phones around the country. those people who were, and are, in charge at news international are allowed to carry on as normal.  thus the closing of the news of the world is just a sacrifice to the masses, a diversion to keep them away from the power brokers.

it is a pragmatic move because for all intents and purposes the news of the world, as a brand and as a campaigning newspaper, is dead in the water. the loss of readers and advertisers making the paper no longer economically viable, more importantly the fear that the anger towards the actions of the news of the world would taint the rest of the news international stable. so the news of the world had to go.

no need to worry as there had already been moves within news international to position staff on the sun newspaper so that they can work seven days a week and the only reason for that? to get a sunday sun out. the question now is just how quickly can they do it and not look like they are not penitent about the news of the world situation.

max mosley must be laughing his head off. we had no problems with the revelations that they may have hacked the phones of celebs and politicians. we have been taught that they are fair game, that they are casualties that are necessary in the cause of a free press that seeks out stories in the national interest (which in newspaper terms broadly means profitable for the paper). it was only with the news that the hacking also intruded into the personal grief of ordinary people that the shit hit the fan for news international. apparently there is a lot more to come.

the original hacking claims didn’t cause that much of a stir for the public, mainly because the media tried its very hardest to ignore it.

odd really when you consider just what a powerful story it was, even when it was just celebrities. here was a national newspaper breaking the law, here was a newsroom apparently out of control, as the editors of the time seemed to be saying that they didn’t have a clue as to what was going on. yet somehow the story was never pursued. yet give the papers mp’s expenses and they were like ravening beasts – the most innocuous claim blown out of all proportion. or look how they pursued a few mps because of their sexuality – liked it mattered, forcing a few to confess as if being gay meant they were somehow incapable of the job. remember how quickly they were to shout for a minister to fall on their sword if something went wrong in their department.

contrast that with how quiet they were over the original hacking cases – how lightly andy coulson got off first time around. judging by some of the headlines in the red tops this past week they were keen to let it all slide.

none of them rushing to condemn, very few calls for the head of rebekah brooks or james murdoch perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to fellow journalists or more likely that there are skeletons in all their closets. for a long time they have used the ‘it is in the public’s interest’ when they have broken stories about scandals of the rich and famous. these footballers, musicians, actors and the like are, we are told, role models because they are in the public eye and because they can influence people. so the argument goes they are legitimate targets.

yet they are only role models and influencers because the media has told us so.

somehow the media, with a few notable exceptions, has remained in the background all the while influencing people. it never turns the spotlight on to itself, and it tried very hard not to do it with the latest hacking story preferring to tell cheryl not to go back to ashley.

if we are lucky this will lead to the media having a hard look at itself and changing. doubtful.

if we are lucky it will mean that the two main political parties will move away from worrying what the press has to say and develop policy that has more in common with what the public wants than what a few editors tell us the public want. at the moment the conservatives and david cameron are tarnished by this. labour hasn’t escaped untouched. this is something where they could come together to make sure that there is legislation in place to prevent, and if necessary punish, a media that oversteps the line. some might say that this could be used as a weapon to curtail a free press, but a press that is just interesting in tittle tattle and tawdry stories isn’t worried about the national interest just in the bottom line.

if we are lucky it will mean the end of murdoch’s overbearing influence on british politics and british opinion.

what i think will happen is that this will all blow over and it will be business as normal.

but we can hope.


No comments: