Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?

This is in an interesting area. On the television last week, I heard a journalist protesting that the use of illegal means to obtain stories "in the public interest" was OK.

Well it is not. The media are not our moral, legal or protective guardians, however they like to appoint themselves as such. Who are they to judge what is in the "public interest"? Who are they to determine what legal boundaries are "OK" to cross, and which are to be respected?

As its stands, the media seem to have set themselves up as the fourth arm of the state (legislative, judicial, and executive being the others). When did that become the case? Who voted for it? Absolutely ridiculous.

The media should stick to legitimate means to obtain stories. They should respect privacy. They should report suspected crimes to the police. They should not invent stories or entrap people. May be then I would regain a smidgeon of respect for them.

I don't think journalists have any concept of public interest. Their motivation is selling newspapers.

The more outrageous the headlines and story, the more likley the increased sales.

I'm sure the MET does quite a bit of phone hacking itself so its pretty ironic that they don't like others doing it.

No, don't care one iota. Same difference as Wikileaks just that this time it's irrelevant luvvies rather than critical state info. The Met should be catching muggers and terrorists.

No newspaper should be allowed to work outside the law irrespective of the story or perceived public interest. Time and again we hear how NoW and various other tabloids step over the line to grab that exclusive. It`s irresponsible journalism along with political bias that`s destroying our once respected newspaper industry. The laws are there, use them.

i think this is a simple enough question?

how would you like it if somebody was doing this to you?
i don't think there's a single person out there that would want anybody to be listening and spying on there private conversations.

isn't it strange

Andy gray sues NOTW (his own boss) then magically stack's of evidence from months ago all come out at once!

you cant sue your boss and expect to keep your job!
but at the same time what right do they have to hack angry grays phone or anybody else for that matter!

The communication interception laws are not strong enough.
These laws should also include all government agencies, eg GCHQ Cheltenham.

Lot of hypocrisy here. I think it is a anti Murdoch bunch (or Dark Forces as Keys said)
The BBC and Guardian can 'obtain' information (no one questions if it is legal or illegal, or how they ‘obtained’ it))
I would like the Met . to investigate where the BBC and Guardian get their information and how.
'Can of worms' children and all I want is fair play for ALL regarding sources of journalistic information.

The most truthful part of a newspaper is the advertisements.

Unless I am mistaken, this phone hacking "scandal" refers to a long list of totally uninteresting and irrelevant so-called celebrities, including: Sienna Miller (or her mum, not sure which), Andy Gray, Lenny Henry, George Galloway, Heather Mills, Paul Gascoigne, Nigella Lawson, Elle MacPherson etc etc
Who, in their right mind, would be interested in a single utterance from any one of these buffoons. You really are scraping the barrel if you think any of these have anything interesting to say - about anything!!
I'm sure Paul Gacoigne's drunken utterances would have provoked a few laughs, though!!

NOPE ! There has to be a story there in the first place !!
A wrong doing is a wrong doing ... Similar situation to whistle blowing .

Those who live by good publicity, should not be surprised when bad Publicity turns up on their doorstep

If it is in the public interest a story is a story

No - i don't believe them anyway.

No i dont read newspapers as they are all full of OPINIONS rather than FACTS.

I want to see real news, not some scandal conceived in the news office on how to get a headline.

If any member of the public hacked anyone else phone etc that would be punishable by law so it is right the journalists, apologies to real journalists, who do this are prosecuted and those who use the excuse it is in the public interest are wrong.

If you are handed material and it becomes the public domain then go ahead, if there was illegal methods used to gain it then you are in the clear.

Phone hacking and tapping are illegal activities that can only be sanctioned to Law enforcement by legal means, I do not see journalists as having this right of access.

Unfortuantely the kiss and tell journalism represented by the market leaders owned by a certain RM have no scruples.

If something is illegal then it's illegal. If you disagree then try and change the law. Newspapers are not above the law, to be honest I personally think they make everything up anyway.

At 12:01pm on 27 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
No newspaper should be allowed to work outside the law irrespective of the story or perceived public interest. Time and again we hear how NoW and various other tabloids step over the line to grab that exclusive. It`s irresponsible journalism along with political bias that`s destroying our once respected newspaper industry. The laws are there, use them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You have to be joking 'destroying our once respected newspaper industry'. That’s a laugh
They lie, distort, make stories up, twist, spin, etc
Respected ! I think they are a bunch of twisted ego's who would sell their own mother.
They are unaccountable to the public and get away with so much filth and misinformation, I am surprised it has taken this long to bring this bunch of luvvies into line and have them respect the public (I DO include the BBC with its obvious left wing bias)
The media in general is, IMHO, a sick beast in the UK and has hid behind the skirt of 'press freedom' for too long.
I look forward to it being brought into line and act more responsible to assist in the overall health of OUR country, not as it is at the moment, generator mischief and immorality.

Obtaining stories by illegal means cannot condoned in any way. If phone hacking has been used the editors should be fired, prosecuted and imprisoned.

Whether you are a celebrity or a private individual you deserve the right to privacy. Many of the "stories" published are prurient, exaggerated in the main, and are only there to sell papers. Quality journalism goes out of the window as a result.

The tabloid papers, gossip magazines etc need to take a good look at themselves and take a responsible approach to journalism.

If the Met Police have been found to be leaking stories, information etc then good. They should be sacked, prosecuted and where necessary imprisoned.

Could the BBC revert to discussing the news, rather than using the news and HYS as vehicles for its argument with Murdoch.

The BBC is really just showing why it is no longer fit for purpose. Its 'news' is all to frequently just a vehicle for its own agenda. Today it's Murdoch-bashing, tomorrow it might be Global Warming again, or Berlusconi, or a Poor Immigrant About To Be Expelled, or a Britain (White) is Bigoted story.....yawnnnnn.

Is it necessary to "take a thief to catch a thief"? I guess not. To show respects to other professionals is very important to our modern society.

One of the reasons that Labour government put GB into recession was their ill management style and greediness. Ignorant public sector managers try to manipulate scientists/engineers causing unhappiness, so that the management system was clasped.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Do I care that the rich, powerful and celebrity obsessed are snooped on?
NO.

In some respects the newspapers are performing a valuable service.

Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?

Yes and No. Basically, if it's "in the public interest" rather than 'of interest to the public', No I don't care what the sources are or whether it was illegal for the journalists to use that source or not. However, if the latter applies, Yes I do care.

For example, take the MP's expenses scandal. I don't care whether what the Daily Telegraph did to get the info was illegal or not. It was and is in the public interest that we were made aware of it. Conversely, odious little toerags that they may be, jouros shouldn't be hacking into footballers' (or any other celeb's) private stuff to find out who's putting it about a bit - despite the fact that it may be of some prurient interest to some sectors of the public. If such celeb tittle tattle enters the public domain legitimately however, all bets should be off and no use of 'super injunctions' should be allowed.

BTW, as far as I'm concerened, politicians have very limited rights to a private life. Any hidden wrongdoing by these chancers could well result in blackmail, so I'm afraid that I believe that their illicit affairs etc., are fair game for the journos.

I am concerned where newspapers get their stories, I'm not concerned where the news of the world and the sun get the rubbish they print from

I think the fish stinks from the head.

anyone want to argue in favour of a full takeover of Sky by you know who????

The BBC is really just showing why it is no longer fit for purpose. Its 'news' is all to frequently just a vehicle for its own agenda. Today it's Murdoch-bashing, tomorrow it might be Global Warming again, or Berlusconi, or a Poor Immigrant About To Be Expelled, or a Britain (White) is Bigoted story.....yawnnnnn.

Oh - I Am so sorry - I forgot that you cant say anything bad about saint Rupert

The press rule this Country and set the political agenda, we have journalists personal friends of politicians, in my view I could not care less BUT I do object to Council employees and the Police reading my e-mails and tapping my phone!( if they want to)

16. At 12:16pm on 27 Jan 2011, AuntieLeft wrote:

At 12:01pm on 27 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
No newspaper should be allowed to work outside the law irrespective of the story or perceived public interest. Time and again we hear how NoW and various other tabloids step over the line to grab that exclusive. It`s irresponsible journalism along with political bias that`s destroying our once respected newspaper industry. The laws are there, use them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You have to be joking 'destroying our once respected newspaper industry'. That’s a laugh
They lie, distort, make stories up, twist, spin, etc
Respected ! I think they are a bunch of twisted ego's who would sell their own mother.
They are unaccountable to the public and get away with so much filth and misinformation, I am surprised it has taken this long to bring this bunch of luvvies into line and have them respect the public (I DO include the BBC with its obvious left wing bias)
The media in general is, IMHO, a sick beast in the UK and has hid behind the skirt of 'press freedom' for too long.
I look forward to it being brought into line and act more responsible to assist in the overall health of OUR country, not as it is at the moment, generator mischief and immorality.

-----------------------------------

Trust me, go back 70 or so years and beyond then look at the equivalent in other western countries and you`ll see out of them all Fleet Street WAS respected. I note with interest though that you bring up the BBC for political left wing bias yet fail to mention that same bias, albeit right-wing shown by the likes of news corp. A post worthy of inclusion in the News of the World.

I'm concerned as to what Coulson may have learned (either directly or indirectly) and passed on to David Cameron. The PM is tainted with this affair, I can only hope that he treats any information he may or may not have gleaned from Coulson with respect.

New of the World is hardly serious news and analysis. Only use is for packaging.

I am more concerned that this case seems to have not been investigated fully.

If it's done for free and exposes wrong-doings by individuals, governments etc then as whistle-blowing, YES. But those that sought to seek financial or other gain, then NO! Any of the latter being caught should be subject to whatever law applies. Seriously take a look at some of the grotesque and suspect journalisim in many parts of this industry, you'll find that a great many are more than just border-line!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On a positive note, phone tapping suggests that some reporter was at some point trying to find evidence to base a story on. What a change from the BBC that goes and reprints press releases without thinking.

At 12:31pm on 27 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
16. At 12:16pm on 27 Jan 2011, AuntieLeft wrote:

At 12:01pm on 27 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
No newspaper should be allowed to work outside the law irrespective of the story or perceived public interest. Time and again we hear how NoW and various other tabloids step over the line to grab that exclusive. It`s irresponsible journalism along with political bias that`s destroying our once respected newspaper industry. The laws are there, use them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You have to be joking 'destroying our once respected newspaper industry'. That’s a laugh
They lie, distort, make stories up, twist, spin, etc
Respected ! I think they are a bunch of twisted ego's who would sell their own mother.
They are unaccountable to the public and get away with so much filth and misinformation, I am surprised it has taken this long to bring this bunch of luvvies into line and have them respect the public (I DO include the BBC with its obvious left wing bias)
The media in general is, IMHO, a sick beast in the UK and has hid behind the skirt of 'press freedom' for too long.
I look forward to it being brought into line and act more responsible to assist in the overall health of OUR country, not as it is at the moment, generator mischief and immorality.

-----------------------------------

Trust me, go back 70 or so years and beyond then look at the equivalent in other western countries and you`ll see out of them all Fleet Street WAS respected. I note with interest though that you bring up the BBC for political left wing bias yet fail to mention that same bias, albeit right-wing shown by the likes of news corp. A post worthy of inclusion in the News of the World.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry to counter your delusion.
I have and never will buy NOTW or the S*n, etc or any purveyors of lies and filth.
I am sorry I have another view to your own (I know how much you lefties don’t like that)
The media in the UK, has for many years been going downhill (don’t care if it’s right of left wing bias) and I include the BBC for which I DID have respect for UNTIL it has been infiltrated by leftist luvvies who ARE pushing an agenda.

I cannot get very exercised about this. It seems that whenever one section of the media gets caught out everyone else jumps on the bandwagon to say how horrified they are. There are more important things going on.

11. At 12:08pm on 27 Jan 2011, Lord Rant wrote:

NOPE ! There has to be a story there in the first place !!
A wrong doing is a wrong doing ... Similar situation to whistle blowing .

Those who live by good publicity, should not be surprised when bad Publicity turns up on their doorstep

If it is in the public interest a story is a story

--------

so it ok to hack into peoples phones?
what?
you cant be for real!

16. At 12:16pm on 27 Jan 2011, AuntieLeft wrote:

At 12:01pm on 27 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
No newspaper should be allowed to work outside the law irrespective of the story or perceived public interest. Time and again we hear how NoW and various other tabloids step over the line to grab that exclusive. It`s irresponsible journalism along with political bias that`s destroying our once respected newspaper industry. The laws are there, use them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You have to be joking 'destroying our once respected newspaper industry'. That’s a laugh
They lie, distort, make stories up, twist, spin, etc
Respected ! I think they are a bunch of twisted ego's who would sell their own mother.
They are unaccountable to the public and get away with so much filth and misinformation, I am surprised it has taken this long to bring this bunch of luvvies into line and have them respect the public (I DO include the BBC with its obvious left wing bias)
The media in general is, IMHO, a sick beast in the UK and has hid behind the skirt of 'press freedom' for too long.
I look forward to it being brought into line and act more responsible to assist in the overall health of OUR country, not as it is at the moment, generator mischief and immorality.

-------------
he didnt say it IS respected he said it ONCE was

8. At 12:06pm on 27 Jan 2011, AuntieLeft wrote:

Lot of hypocrisy here. I think it is a anti Murdoch bunch (or Dark Forces as Keys said)
The BBC and Guardian can 'obtain' information (no one questions if it is legal or illegal, or how they ‘obtained’ it))
I would like the Met . to investigate where the BBC and Guardian get their information and how.
'Can of worms' children and all I want is fair play for ALL regarding sources of journalistic information.

--------

yes loads in those whole 7 posts before yours that probably were not even viewable when you posted?

Given the garbage that exists in our press, I dont care about the source rather the quality.

I dont actually want to know:
1. what someone is wearing,
2. that they look fat on holiday,
3. that they have had surgery,
4. having an affair.

If a "celebrity" does this, so what. Its their life, the public dont need to know. Sadly the press think people buying a paper is justification for what they do regardless that most people just want the sport, TV, crossword and the headlines.

The point is being missed by a mile time and again.

Not only is it illegal to bug someone's phone, but they puroprted that it was a one off, a single person acting alone and that it was all over ages ago.

What kind of fool will believe them again?

I do not really care how the story gets into print However I do care about the law of the land it does not matter if you are a PM that takes us into an illegal war if you are a member of the secret service that takes part in torture a journalist or a policeman that takes part in phone hacking If found out you should pay the price if this is not acceptable well change the law but the law should be for everyone regarless of their position

This is in an interesting area. On the television last week, I heard a journalist protesting that the use of illegal means to obtain stories "in the public interest" was OK.

--------------
Public interest defence is a bit rich when most of the time this type of gutter journalism is being used to establish which minor celeb is boffing which footballer etc!

I am very concerned about the sources. It is deeply ironic that the news media in general but especially the tabloids often imply that a suspect in a crime is guilty (innocent until proven guilty barely seems to apply) and now the News of the World is alleged to have broken the law. It's strange how this story escalates now Murdoch wants control of BSkyB though.

The BBC and Deutsche Welle are the main two sources I use for news because while there may be a left wing bias it has nothing on the rabid hatred of the tabloid right of which the news of the world is one.

This needs to be nipped in the bud immediately and since Murdoch and NotW by extension only care about their bank balance that is the place to hit them. A large fine which is substantially more than any profit they made would be a good start.

Freedom of the press is important but individual privacy is important for all, celebrity or otherwise.

The job of all news media is to tell us the known facts, all of the known facts and nothing else - it is the reader's, listener's, viewer's decision how to interpret it.

Lets be under NO illusion as far as newspapers go to ataining information and harassing people is in itself attrocious an in many instances imoral, but THIS particular sourcing of information is CRIMINALLY SOURCED.

Basically these newspapers who are involved in such, are supposidly the bastions of decency and morals and justice, yet their behaviour is in DIRECT opposition to that which they portray.

Its relatively like a self righteous family loving and family policy orientated politician getting caught with a a prostitute or in some dark bottom spanking club or whatever.

As far as I am concerned, punishment has NOT gone far enough as the newspaper concerned has NOT been punished in line or with seriousness of which such behaviour deserves.

If a teacher or nurse does something wrong, then the WHOLE department is made to pay a financial penalty, whether fines or compensation.

In my opinion the SAME should happen to the News of The World in respect of those caught within it who have acted CRIMINALLY in the course of activity which has PROFFITED the News of The World.

I'd suggest fining the news of the World, say, the same present market value as BSkyB.

if my memory serves me well,did we not hear sweet andy say "i'm innocent guv" dave backed him to the hilt and the good old met more or less intimated there is no case to answer to,well words to that effect.
it appears,now,there is a case to and someone as to answer for the dispicable and dishonest act of"phone tapping"the dirty raincoat syndrome of jounalism,(if you want to call it that)andy darling as resigned left "dave" in the pooo,and the met have regained there memory after suffering from,keep quiet and it may go away syndrome.of course the worse charge of all,srictly from being a proud owner of british citizenship,is the acusation the met and politions were running scared of rupert,the cowards,they have brought shame and besmirch the name of britain,if they where men of good character they would do the right thing,either resign or borrow a pistol with one bullet,alas, i suspect these specimens of weakness, have to stand on a chair to be a man,they will weasel out of it pass the buck and throw themself on the mercy of murdoch,they do "NOT" derserve to lead our country.SACK THEM ALL!!!!

It's very important that the law is respected. There is no case at all that illegal means should be used to break a story - that's just hypocritical and makes for poor journalism.
For this crime, I'd have the New of the World closed. Then that'll be one less pointless newspaper we have.

2 things spring to mind,

1) why hasnt oftcom insisted that phoine users are given the option that only allows answer phone messages to be picked up from designated numbers.

2) Why don the PM and the Chancalor (IE G.Brown) not have a secure mobile phone. How is it possible for them to have a hackable phone!

At 12:48pm on 27 Jan 2011, scotty1694 wrote:
16. At 12:16pm on 27 Jan 2011, AuntieLeft wrote:

At 12:01pm on 27 Jan 2011, corncobuk wrote:
No newspaper should be allowed to work outside the law irrespective of the story or perceived public interest. Time and again we hear how NoW and various other tabloids step over the line to grab that exclusive. It`s irresponsible journalism along with political bias that`s destroying our once respected newspaper industry. The laws are there, use them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You have to be joking 'destroying our once respected newspaper industry'. That’s a laugh
They lie, distort, make stories up, twist, spin, etc
Respected ! I think they are a bunch of twisted ego's who would sell their own mother.
They are unaccountable to the public and get away with so much filth and misinformation, I am surprised it has taken this long to bring this bunch of luvvies into line and have them respect the public (I DO include the BBC with its obvious left wing bias)
The media in general is, IMHO, a sick beast in the UK and has hid behind the skirt of 'press freedom' for too long.
I look forward to it being brought into line and act more responsible to assist in the overall health of OUR country, not as it is at the moment, generator mischief and immorality.

-------------
he didnt say it IS respected he said it ONCE was

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I know, I just wanted a rant........

You dont get a chance to have a go at those unaccountable luvvies in the media (as they control media output) to often !

If you didnt know, it was actually the governments request that phone systems are not 100% secure and thus can be hacked. The reason, they want to be able to eaves drop on your conversations without you or the provider knowing.

There are "guideline" for our protection but they are only guidelines.

Ask anyone in the mobile industry.

I'm getting sick and tired of journalists spouting out the same tired phrase 'we did it because it's in the publics interests'.

Firstly, BE HONEST...you didn't do it because you felt the general public had a 'right' to know. You did it because you wanted to make a name for yourself and lots of money in the process, and your employers (News of the World et all) turned a blind eye to it because they new the stories would sell papers and make them lots of money.

Secondly, the ONLY time it is acceptable to secretly film/tape private conversations, by pretending to be someone you're not or hacking into someone's phone line/email account, is when you have evidence that someone is engaged in criminal behaviour or doing something that has a directly detrimental effect on the general public i.e. people trafficing (criminal) or MPs expenses scandal (directly detrimental to public).

Attempts to get information in this manner is morally wrong in any other situation (excluding the examples above) and is criminal in itself...the journalist need to be prosecuted accordingly and the newpapers heavily fined if they publish such information.

I'm am sick and tired of newspapers (and the media in general) acting the worlds morals police and thinking that they are any better than the people they publish stories about. Many people are so concerned with MPs behaviuour...but the media get away with virtual murder as noone ever really questions their moral integrity...if they did it would be found wanting.

9. At 12:06pm on 27 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
The most truthful part of a newspaper is the advertisements

If it wasn't for newspapers you'd think the Queen mother was still alive and MPs don't fiddle their expenses. Some of those MPs have now been jailed. Think of the importance a free press plays in a democratic country.

Mobile phone hacking is not acceptable.

Time many of these journalists got what is coming to them. They are not above the law.

We need the media to be able to investigate freely.

This should not involve hacking into private personal information unless it happens to be for the prevention of terror or crime. If you know a big bad event is going to happen and you just need some proof so you will be believed, perhaps hacking can be excused.

The BIG MISSING PART of the phone hacking story, is that Phone Providers supplied phones without security and voice mail turned on by default (the user did not know).

In our case, a few years ago, we did not know voice mail was turned on (the phone manual did not say), we had no idea messages were building up to start with, it was hard work finding how to turn it off (special code needed from phone provider), there was no security on message retrieval.

The Message System was wide open to ABUSE, it's still possible to set some one up by leaving malicious scandalous (or worse) message and wait or tip the media off to pick it up.

How many were abused in this way?

Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?

To me personally no since I stopped buying or reading newspapers many years ago.

One thing that is troubling however is when newspapers say they got information from 'anonymous' sources whom they refuse to name, after all if their sources are 'anonymous' how can the general public have confidence in their veracity?

Yes I am concerned. This is just bad cheap journalism.

I'm certainly concerned that a "newspaper" considers actress Sienna Miller's private life to be so "in the public interest" that phone hacking is deemed a reasonable way of gaining details of it. I'd like to see jail sentences at the end of this saga and financial penalties so severe that they bring tears to the eyes of the owners.

opps i foregot, for the last few years mobil phone companies have had to keep records of every time the phone registers with a base station, each outgoing AND incomming call and text / picture message. and what web sites are visied both via a wireless network and the phone service.

Surley they also are keeping records of when and from were the numbers voice mail is accessed. Or did the bill forcing them to keep the data miss this part of a phones usage and thus making the above anti terrist rules totally usless?

3. At 11:55am on 27 Jan 2011, Semisatanic wrote:
"I'm sure the MET does quite a bit of phone hacking itself so its pretty ironic that they don't like others doing it."

Yes, they most certainly do...in an effort gather evidence on people they know to be involved in serious criminal activity i.e. people trafficing, child pornography rings, drug trafficers etc etc.

When was the last time the MET hacked into someone's phoneline or emails just so they could get information on an individuals marital infedelity with the express purpose of making money from newspaper sales??

I wonder where the Guardian got this information from about the talks between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, how they could know whether or not the information from alJazeera was true, and why the BBC reported on this without being able to verify the documents independently.

Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?
Yes of course! What a sill question, that is why I believe alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear over Sky's proposed takeover of BskyB. Murdoch's empire doesn't try to inform the people what is really going on in the world. It goes out of its way to distract them. Distract them while their basic freedoms are being eroded. A recent survey found that 80% of regular Fox News viewers in America believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack. The News International empire's ambition isn't one of openness and honesty for the good of mankind, as can be seen by the present unfolding of the News of the World's phone tapping scandal and cover up, it is about securing monopoly and helping the corporatist take over of sovereign countries through globalisation. Ultimately leading to corporate world dominance.
There is a message to all journalists I saw two days ago from the group of activists calling themselves anonymous, I think it is relevant for not only journalists but anyone who wishes to understand media and the real role it should be playing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FoOve7248&NR=1
To those that criticise the BBC for being biased I recommend switching to sky!

3. At 11:55am on 27 Jan 2011, Semisatanic wrote:
I'm sure the MET does quite a bit of phone hacking itself so its pretty ironic that they don't like others doing it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Except that when The Met hack phones they have to go to a judge and get a warrant first. If they don't, it is they that will feel the full weight of the law, and any evidence they gain will be thrown out of court.

It seeems to me that most people who are up in arms about phone hacking are the ones who think Julian Assange is some kind of hero

The police have reopened their investigation. Why now?
a) New evidence?
b) Andy Coulson has resigned as the PM's right hand man?
What do you think?

I have a huge concern with the quality of the press not to mention how stories are sourced. Surely any self-respecting journo mustn't want to be associated with this??? What is happening to this country?
I could only imagine what 'news' they would find on my voicemail, maybe a message from the hairdress rescheduling my appointment or my other half asking me to pick up dog food on the way home - you know, front page stuff. I think the definition of 'public interest' needs clarifying as mentioned in posts above, I don't think increased sales cuts it frankly

I think this "story" is just more left-wing media vs right-wing media and it's getting as dull as the daftness in the Commons.

I couldn't care less if some sleb meja hoes (all of whom happily use the media to further their "careers" and make money out of us plebs) can't make a proper effort to password-protect their (no doubt freebie/gifted) mobile phones and guard their privacy. None of them have ever said anything worth listening to, and if they decide to depend on the tabloids for their PR, they shouldn't expect it all to be a one way ride.

7. At 12:04pm on 27 Jan 2011, Reclaim_the_country wrote:
The communication interception laws are not strong enough.
These laws should also include all government agencies, eg GCHQ Cheltenham.
==========================
Good idea. Let's stop all ways of trying to prevent terrorism

18. At 12:20pm on 27 Jan 2011, Masons Arms wrote:
Could the BBC revert to discussing the news, rather than using the news and HYS as vehicles for its argument with Murdoch.

The BBC is really just showing why it is no longer fit for purpose. Its 'news' is all to frequently just a vehicle for its own agenda. Today it's Murdoch-bashing, tomorrow it might be Global Warming again, or Berlusconi, or a Poor Immigrant About To Be Expelled, or a Britain (White) is Bigoted story.....yawnnnnn.

=========================================================================

For every topic of discussion on HYS, you somehow find goofy reasons to attack the BBC and immigration.

I can imagine how the BBC and immigration are real problems for you and people of your mindset.

Give yourself a break and address the question "Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?"

11. At 12:08pm on 27 Jan 2011, Lord Rant wrote:
"NOPE ! There has to be a story there in the first place !!
A wrong doing is a wrong doing ... Similar situation to whistle blowing .

Those who live by good publicity, should not be surprised when bad Publicity turns up on their doorstep

If it is in the public interest a story is a story"

Great, we've got a bunch of amateur moral police out there acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Please tell me HOW it is in the 'public interest' to hack into a 'celebrity's' phoneline in order to get evidence of their marital infedelity?? Last time I checked this was not a criminal offence, and who the hell cares if z-list celebrities are cheating on their husbands/wives?

You completely miss the point 'Lord Rant'...fair enough, it could be seen as acceptable IF you had evidence a person was taking part in criminal behaviour and you wanted a 'smoking gun' style conversation to nail them...but the vaste majority of phone hacking is done for sleazey non-stories that make lots of money for the newspapers because the world is full of voyeurs.

For me it would depend on the type of event being investigated; if the media are using illegal methods to uncover corruption or other unlawful activity then there is a legitimate public interest in the story being told (as long as they aren’t using entrapment in order to coerce somebody into breaking the law).
If they're using illegal methods in order to print gossip about private individuals, regardless of how rich or famous they are, then there is no legitimate public interest in the story being told.

A rather tenuous analogy would be regarding the legitimate use of physical force; if someone is attacking you then you have every right to use physical force to stop them but you can't physically attack someone just because you feel like it.

A related question that needs to be asked: How is it possible for journalists to hack into other peoples' voice mail? Should not someone be examining the phone companies' poor security? There is no excuse for this.

I don't buy newspapers and never read them: what I hear on the TV and Radio news bulletin's I take with a pinch of salt. I am not interested in the sordid lives of so called celebrities, and the voyuerism of those members of the general public who do buy the drival are as much to blame as the reporters that seem to feel they are serving the public interest: that level of interest is pretty low: hence gutter press. I do however detest MP's who line their pockets, and have no sympathy for the celebrities - as no publicity can be bad publicity for them. Leave them to squirm in the mire of their own making they do not deserve privacy laws, but good luck if they can make a bob or two out of legislation designed for people who are unable to protect their good name.

10. At 12:06pm on 27 Jan 2011, Chris wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, this phone hacking "scandal" refers to a long list of totally uninteresting and irrelevant so-called celebrities, including: Sienna Miller (or her mum, not sure which), Andy Gray, Lenny Henry, George Galloway, Heather Mills, Paul Gascoigne, Nigella Lawson, Elle MacPherson etc etc
Who, in their right mind, would be interested in a single utterance from any one of these buffoons. You really are scraping the barrel if you think any of these have anything interesting to say - about anything!!
I'm sure Paul Gacoigne's drunken utterances would have provoked a few laughs, though!!
__________________________________________
You miss the point Chris, celebrity plays a very important part in distracting people from important issues that directly effect them. Soaps for women sport for men. Keep people dumbed down with drivel TV and while they are in the alpha state subliminally program them with emotive propaganda to necessitate the correct response at the right time. The targeting of members of the Royal family first brought the case to light. A corparatist attack on a cornerstone of our soverign nation. Murdoch versus the Queen, who do you think is more powerful? Where does your allegience lie?

Let's face it, The News of the World is a filthy little rag that lost any respectability it ever had so long ago that I doubt there are few alive now that can remember it. Being employed by the paper could hardly be considered the acme of a career in journalism. This country can well do without gutter journalism, but I'm sad to say there are plenty of stupid people who are prepared to pay for such salacious rubbish.

9. At 12:06pm on 27 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
The most truthful part of a newspaper is the advertisements.

#########################################################

You cnnot be serious!

18. At 12:20pm on 27 Jan 2011, Masons Arms wrote:
Could the BBC revert to discussing the news, rather than using the news and HYS as vehicles for its argument with Murdoch.

The BBC is really just showing why it is no longer fit for purpose. Its 'news' is all to frequently just a vehicle for its own agenda. Today it's Murdoch-bashing, tomorrow it might be Global Warming again, or Berlusconi, or a Poor Immigrant About To Be Expelled, or a Britain (White) is Bigoted story.....yawnnnnn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel like yawning when I read yet another of your immigrant obsessed postings. Please change the record.

The sad part of this as with any scandal is that a whole profession gets tarred with the same brush. As somebody else pointed out the expenses scandal was broken by a newspaper. Over the years so have other major issues.

Many years ago I worked in newspapers. I left not because of the stories we were covering but because of the way we had to obtain proof needed to satisfy the lawyers. (before anybody tries to libel me I'm not talking criminal law stuff but the kind of thing that involved stepping over lines in a way that went against my personal beliefs) Some of those stories became big issues because they exposed corruption and wrongdoing.

Leaving the profession was a difficult decision because I had joined to make a difference and was seeing at first hand that I could. On the other hand the "ulcers" weren't pleasant.

Do I agree with phone tapping ? No. But I also don't agree with a legal system that is based on money. Few newspapers have the money to fight battles against big business or millionaires in the courts so the victor is often the person with the most money. Far simpler to run stories on some celeb or other for whom most publicity is good publicity to the extent they or their agents will leak information themselves. (ever noticed how many seem to have had the same life experience as their role in their next film or tv "drama")

To those upset because the media dares to question your favourite party are you suggesting newspapers and TV should lap up everything our politicians say without question ? That would be very irresponsible and lacking any commonsense. If the government wished to introduce censorship would you be happy because there isn't much difference between that and what you are suggesting. In reality I would always expect somebody to scream bias as there will always be people holding another view. (though I do wonder how many of those claiming a BBC bias against Murdoch are just Sky shareholders wanting to make a few pounds from the sale of their shares)

"Unless I am mistaken, this phone hacking "scandal" refers to a long list of totally uninteresting and irrelevant so-called celebrities, including:..."

Not necessarily correct. Some of those who are believed to have been hacked were members of the government at the time plus at least a couple of opposition MPs. Before supporters of other parties say "well that is OK" consider whether you are happy for this current government or your parties MPs to be hacked or bugged. How about Cameron's meetings with the Murdochs ? The disclosure of the details by the Metropolitan Police to those who were hacked is though one of the issues of this whole case.

As others have said I don't comprehend the sudden sense of surprise or outrage here. Most of this country's so-called 'news'papers have been openly engaging in morally and ethically suspect tactics for years. Fabricating stories, harassing bereaved relatives, 'cheque-book journalism', 'kiss n' tells', incessant demonisation of anyone they dislike (public sector workers, fat people, immigrants, Muslims), institutional misogyny, homophobia, suppression of opposing beliefs, stifling of debate, cynical commercialism, and the way in which for some bizarre reason supposedly intelligent and open-minded people continue to consume them uncritically, have all given us the broken, divided and deeply unpleasant, intolerant society in which we find ourselves having to live.

There was talk of 'reining in' the gutter media in particular following the death of Diana; instead they seem to have become more of a law unto themselves with every year that passes. The misrepresentation, manipulation of facts, agenda setting and reliance on stereotypes and divisive attacks on minority groups so beloved of the modern media have generated numerous dangerous, diversionary moral panics and created a distorted climate of debate which serves only the demands of corporate advertisers and the barons who've been allowed to acquire a terrifying level of influence over these key architects of public opinion.

One would think that the popularity of 'media studies' courses would have resulted in the sort of incisive, diverse and pluralistic media that the world would envy - in fact the opposite seems to be true, doubtless because (unlike, say, social sciences), such courses seem to be more about how to conform to and get on in the world of media than the need to critically examine the assumptions behind it. Everything has become about making a name through 'pushing boundaries' and generating controversy. There is little good left in British 'journalism' - even the so-called 'quality' outlets (including the BBC) are forever pushing their interventionist, big-government, nanny-state bias - which is why I haven't bought a newspaper in years and rely instead on online news sources, particularly blogs which are written by people who are both knowledgeable and passionate about their subject areas and who serve their own consciences rather than big business / pharma / Govt.

18. At 12:20pm on 27 Jan 2011, Masons Arms wrote:
Could the BBC revert to discussing the news, rather than using the news and HYS as vehicles for its argument with Murdoch.

The BBC is really just showing why it is no longer fit for purpose. Its 'news' is all to frequently just a vehicle for its own agenda. Today it's Murdoch-bashing, tomorrow it might be Global Warming again, or Berlusconi, or a Poor Immigrant About To Be Expelled, or a Britain (White) is Bigoted story.....yawnnnnn.
______________________________________________
Then why are you posting here Masons Arms, I'm sure Mr Murdoch would willingly take your money, and appreciate some of the nonsense you spout.

In the public interest...
MPs expenses; bankers bonuses, shady dealings by elected/unelected bodies &c

Things the public are interested in...
X-Factor contestants; WAGS; the antics of ex-glamour models &c

Newspapers have always used undercover reporters.

Justified? Well, speaking for myself - if a phone-hack revealed (say) that secret plans were afoot to bulldoze my house, or the UK was manoevering towards another war, then I'd probably say the ends justified the means. However, as I find 99.9 per cent of the output utter tosh I have to say not.

50. At 1:08pm on 27 Jan 2011, Edwin Schrodinger wrote:
"9. At 12:06pm on 27 Jan 2011, Magi Tatcher wrote:
The most truthful part of a newspaper is the advertisements

If it wasn't for newspapers you'd think the Queen mother was still alive and MPs don't fiddle their expenses. Some of those MPs have now been jailed. Think of the importance a free press plays in a democratic country."

The truly terrifying thing for me is how quick people are to believe newspaper stories, and how we rarely question the validity of information printed in them.

Look, I don't believe everything a politician tells me...equally I take most things a read in the media with a pinch of salt because they vaste majority of stories have holes the size of the grand canyon in them when subjected to serious scrutiny.

I'm grateful to the newspapers for printing factually accurate articles on criminal behaviour, and I certainly consider it 'in the publics interests' that they do this...BUT there is so much worthless crap also printed that it is very difficult to decipher what is fact from fiction.

Don't be fooled by the line 'we do it in the public's interest's'...they do not...they do it to SELL NEWSPAPERS and make loads of money.

With freedom of the press comes responsibility by the press.
They should not be above the law but neither should the ruling elite create and enforce laws whose aim or result is to prevent expoure of its errors.

Many writers are right to draw attention to the excesses of the press in trying to find celebrity tittle-tattle to boost their circulations (BTW doesn't say much for the public when they succeed).

But equally the press perform the useful function of holding our leaders to account and exposing corruption, hypocricies, and ineptitude among the 'great and the good'.

For example, do you remember a friendly fire incident out in the gulf when a UK soldier was killed by an American plane? The military went very quiet and the family of the deceased couldn't get any information. Which paper got hold of the cockpit recording from the US plane and published it? Hold on to your hats, it was the SUN.

Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?
So, if a Journalist uncovered a plot to blow up a Plane, it would be wrong.
Surely the point is the importance of the story.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?

Yes

69. At 1:24pm on 27 Jan 2011, Paul Carlier wrote:
"A related question that needs to be asked: How is it possible for journalists to hack into other peoples' voice mail? Should not someone be examining the phone companies' poor security? There is no excuse for this."

Good question.

Answer - they pay someone with the expertise and equipment to do it for them and then reap the benefits when they've made their name in 'journalism'.

You see, a true journalist with real integrity will research and dig for months, years even, (LEGALLY) before putting together a well thoughtout, accurate and worthwhile article that truly IS in the public's interests.

The type of 'journalist' that illegally hacks a 'celebrity's' phoneline whilst 'investigating' possible marital infedility, is not actually a journalist at all...because any tom, dick or harry can pay someone to hack a phone line and sit back as the money roles in.

I read one of the Murdoch papers. I can identify whenever it is plugging one of Rupert's pet agenda's and do not read that article. But most of the paper is good for news.

There are other murdoch papers I wouldn't use to line the budgies cage.

As for where they get there information from then the law is not completely clear on this. If I tape a private converation with someone and use that in an article is that legal? Without the others consent? If it isn't illegal should we make it so?

I am reminded about the story of Des Wilson's teeth. Wilson a leading Liberal went to his dentist who after an examination sent him to a specialist with a covering letter. Wilson sat on the tube and with nothing to do read the letter. When he saw the specialist and handed over the letter the specialist complained that Wilson had no-right to read his letter. To which Wilson replied that in that case the specialist had no right to see his teeth!

We have too much secerecy in this country with everyone complaining that this and that is an infringement on their 'privacy'.

What I think is that any politician, like Vince Cable, who spouts off in front of total strangers deserves to be exposed.

Remember the episode of 'Yes Minister' when Sir Humphery was recorded (off-mike) making comments about the unemployed. His minister, the bufoonish Jim Hacker told him 'every politician is always told that every mike is live - always'.

This is a sentiment that should be made to all in the media, every mike is live and everything said in front of strangers is on the record.

As for phone conversations, when the man responsible for on-line bank security says he wouldn't trust on-line banking why are we suprised when someone accesses your phone calls?

Most of the people who are in the media spotlight are there because they chose to be. Very few people - if any - are ordinary everyday individuals.

Those who live by the media - die by the media.

And as the greeks would have it:

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

There's usually no smoke without fire however fabricating stories serves no purpose other than to sell newspapers.

Like many other members of the public I am fed up reading stories which have obviously had arms and legs added by unscrupulous journalists just to get a headline and sell more papers. You have to be a good liar not to be caught.

I suggest rewording it to do we regard the information as reliable and honest, and trusting. The nature of reporting this type of information, suggests it was found by illegal methods. If we or the media wants freedom of information, it will fall down to trust and honesty.

Hnece if this type or reporting paves way for increased censorship of quantity of information, paving way for the power over approach. as it will be seen as an attack on democracy.

In the end the public losses out. because of a few selfish small minded people with low regard to others, by attacking a system, acting in best intentions for the benefit of the country.

8. At 12:06pm on 27 Jan 2011, AuntieLeft wrote:

Lot of hypocrisy here. I think it is a anti Murdoch bunch (or Dark Forces as Keys said)
The BBC and Guardian can 'obtain' information (no one questions if it is legal or illegal, or how they ‘obtained’ it))
I would like the Met . to investigate where the BBC and Guardian get their information and how.
'Can of worms' children and all I want is fair play for ALL regarding sources of journalistic information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Very peculiar argument. With most crimes you would expect the police to have reason to investigate; ie a complaint or tip off. you seem to suggest investigating organisation without evidence of wrong doing; hardly an efficient use of police time.
In the case of the news of the world there has been anger that there were plenty of tip-offs to the police that there was evidence of phone tapping but for years the Met did nothing.
It seems to me that you are forming some bizarre and utterly paranoid idea that liberal "dark forces" have some how seen to it that the News Of the World has been framed. Firstly, where is your evidence that the BBC and the guardian are breaking the law in their journalism? I'd love to see it.
Secondly why do you single out these news providers and do not mention the Sun,Mail, Telegraph? Is this because you are politically motivated above all else?
And one more thing. Anybody with half a brain would realise that Keys was talking about his own employers not some ninja clan of guardian readers.

Just how many tit for tat agreements exist amongst those in the media, the law enforcement and security agencies, the judicial authorities, politics, finance and education are there? And on what basis do they exist?

Are there hidden social networks (in strange clothes or otherwise) determining that what is good for them is good for the rest? How do journalists come by information often, it would seem, unavailable to others?

Either society is corrupt through and through and in need of a urgent clean up, or we are being hoodwinked by the latest story of inadequacies in our police force. Who has got what to hide?

I recall reading a newspaper article about Murdoch's proposed take over of a prominant US newspaper a couple of years ago. An experienced reporter commented that he feared the paper would go back to past bad practice, in his words 'we would again be stealing the photographs of murdered children from their grieving parents mantlepiece'.

There is NOTHING a reporter would not do to get a story, no law, either criminal or moral would stop them. An editor only has to put up a few cut off dead-ends 'get me the story - but don't tell me how' and you have the situation in EVERY press newsroom.

No-one ever believes anything in a nespaper was obtained 'within the law' and as far as they are concerned once it is in the press it must be true. A lot of 'celebrities' have made quite a bit of money whenever a paper has sourced something they cannot prove - legally that is. But if they have found something illegally and once it is out they can prove it through other means then thats it.

Some of the posts here have got to the real core of this story, newspapers were heading into oblivian BEFORE the internet, with it's blogs and facetwitter. All papers are full of nothing but gossip and 'news' that is ALWAYS a day too late.

No wonder murdoch wants to get into satalite TV, his newspaper base is sinking into the quicksand of history.

All the fuss seems to be about newspapers. But newspapers are only one sort of person/organisation making (illegal) use of the mobile system. How many other sorts of people, besides newspapers, are doing the same? What are the police doing to investigate how widespread mobile phone tapping is in general?
And what are the mobile phone manufacturers and operators doing to protect their systems against hacking?
All the sound and fury about this particular case are obscuring some wider and very important issues. In the meantime, perhaps we should all assume that anything said on a mobile may be for public consumption.

Journalists should tell the truth, beyond that no restrictions, otherwise the rich and powerful will take advantage of them.

We saw in the aftermath of the Arizona shooting, how lying journalists ran a smear campaign against the populists, Palin, Beck and the Tea Party. Fortunately, apart from HYS zombies, their lies were recognised.

So in the end, what matters is the truth. It is simple as that.

Politicians, Bankers, Journalists, Media Outlets the Justice system and our reigious leaders have all been found wanting when it comes to integrity, honesty and telling of the truth.

These are our ruling classes, they shape this country and its opinions.

Is it any wonder we are broke in many more ways than just financialy.

Another day, another HYS given over to attacking a business rival, and all at our expense, great. It is almost as pathetic as Karen Brady using her newspaper column as a vehicle for her business ambitions.

Anyway, lets be clear. Post Assange, anything goes. Right? Or was he a somehow more honest thief? A kind of Robin Hood for the Internet generation.

Or is it because Murdoch's papers supported the tories and this is all manufactured outrage?

The Metropolitan Police's acting head has said a "full live investigation" is under way into claims of phone hacking at the News of the World.

should this not have happened the first time round?

What confidence should the public have in this investigation when quite clearly the police did not fully investigate the first time around!

Are there vested interest being protected instead of the law being upheld?

81. At 1:36pm on 27 Jan 2011, toycollector wrote:
Are you concerned about the source of newspaper stories?
So, if a Journalist uncovered a plot to blow up a Plane, it would be wrong.
Surely the point is the importance of the story.

.........................................................

We are talking about the news of the world, I doubt they will pick up any threats to national security tapping the phone of some celebrity.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The British media are not the law and sadly, they seem to despise it. They lack the ethics I would expect from professional people, but perhaps I should realise that journalists actually believe they are special and allowed to intrude in the cause of their voyeuristic audience. Many are also immensely lazy, quoting from every press release they are sent as if it was gospel. The rise of publicists has been made easy because journalists find their own lives less strenuous when they can quote the 'Cliffordspin' instead of getting out of their chairs and finding out for themselves. It is not difficult to see why people depend on the internet instead of looking for informed comment and reporting in newspapers and on TV, because there isn't any anymore.

This case raise anew the question of how far reporters should go in public reporting and examination of personal questions of character. Ethically speaking, the distance is how far you might be tolerant to be watched if you are involved in some case. We treat others the way we want to be treated. There's a reciprocal relationship in social interaction, and all are equal before admitted limitations of conduct in the best interests of all. If few would welcome intrusion, that's their personal idiosyncrasies but not a common feature of majority. No matter how the case matters, going after news stories by dispensing with respects for civil rights is ignoble, and the sense of degradation can be transmitted by the material from the issuer to the readership, especially when some readers find nonetheless they are much into the stories. In consideration of the ideal of justified freedom, which does not interfere with the freedom and rights of others, conscious readers tend to look down on the merits of this all-out news. What we now know as a profession is that the end, no matter how noble, cannot justify the means. A disputable source would undermine the wealth of a news article at last.