This Is Investigative Reporting? News Corp. Allegedly Hacked Into Phones, Paid Off People To Silence Them
from the hmm... dept
We keep being told that only newspapers can do "real" investigative reporting, even though we've seen plenty of evidence of others doing quite impressive investigative reporting without having a background in journalism. And, now, we find out that some investigative reporting by those "real" journalists apparently involved breaking the law, violating individuals' privacy... and then paying people off to keep quiet about it. At least that's the charge from The Guardian against Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. According to the Guardian's report (and, yes, the Guardian is a real newspaper and appears to have done a nice investigative job here -- we're not saying newspapers can't do good investigative reporting), there's growing evidence that a lot of folks involved in Murdoch's News Group Newspapers were involved in hiring people to hack into thousands of mobile phones to record and transcribe phone calls between various politicians and celebrities, and also involved tricking "government agencies, banks, phone companies and others... into handing over confidential information." And? When that evidence started to come out, they apparently paid up a bunch of hush money and convinced a court to seal the files. Again, this isn't to implicate all newspapers (the fact that another newspaper figured this out is great). But the idea that newspaper investigative reporting is somehow "pure" once again seems to be in question.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hacking, newspapers, privacy, reporting, spying
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you BBC World News on PBS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now you're criticizing reporters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So now you're criticizing reporters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So now you're criticizing reporters?
No, actually, we did not. We did discuss the specific legal ramifications of the hack, but that was it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So now you're criticizing reporters?
As I recall, it was pasword guessing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So now you're criticizing reporters?
As I recall, it was pasword guessing."
It's called "cracking". Which would be part of "hacking".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do own a newspaper division, which is where this occurred, which I thought was clear in the post. I'm sorry if it wasn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it weren't for click-through ads, you'd all be low-level programmers somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like a verbal blog to me, but somehow they are a news organization and a blog on the internet isn't in the eyes of some. It doesn't make sense.
If I print out 10-20 copies of some local news and gossip on a regular basis and leave the copies at the local convenience store does that make me a journalist. If i do the same thing but on the internet rather than physical copies would I sill be a journalist.
I'm all for those who say no to bloggers being journalist but I want to hear them say where the line is. What threshold has to be crossed. Just saying I'll know it is unacceptable, that's the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting nanananana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well I'm not a reporter, so I'm not sure why you would suggest that. But which part of the post did you not read, because you seem to have totally misread my argument?
And, in terms of online groups doing investigative reporting, have you looked at ProPublica, Voice of San Diego or TPM? All of them are doing impressive investigative reporting.
If it weren't for click-through ads, you'd all be low-level programmers somewhere.
Well, (1) we don't make much money off ads -- esp not click through ads, so that's demonstrably false and (2) I'm not a programmer, so that's also false.
But... thanks for commenting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You will the cone of silence if you intend to discuss this any further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hacked lol
if you to stupid to make a decent email password, then dont expose your self to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hacked lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hacked lol
It is much different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, this doesn't stop the accusations being true, but it does mean they should be read with an eye to potential spin.
In this case, one News of the World journalist was convicted and imprisoned a few years ago, after he conspired with a private detective to hack phones. The paper's editor resigned, saying that though he hadn't known what his journalist was doing he was still responsible. Some of the victims tried to sue News International, on the theory that they were liable for the conduct of their staff, but that case was settled out of court, and the documents sealed.
Now, a few years later, when that editor is employed by the Conservatives, the Guardian have got hold of some of those sealed files. They say that several other journalists used the same private detective, so the editor must have known. Reading between the lines, they have no hard evidence to back up this inference, or indeed to prove that the other journalists used illegally obtained information, and that private detective also did work for other papers, including some on the left.
There is a real instance of corrupt journalism at the heart of this - that's why one of them did a prison term - but the Guardian currently appears to have resurrected this story for sordid political motives, not because of anything new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Murdoch's media are, um, openly right-wing and actively campaign for their causes. Your point is?
They were paying for illegal content at least twenty years ago. It was common knowledge that News Group would buy embarrassing or scandalous material on any celebrity, however it was obtained. Back in the day when cell phones were analog and you could listen in to the towers with a scanner, an ex sigint guy I worked with used to keep a recorder running all day. One day he recorded one of Princess Diana's conversations with her lover, and sold it to News Group for a tidy sum. The Sun went ahead and published it. There was some critical comment, but no investigation or prosecution.
I submit that the publication is hard evidence of illegal activity. As for why there was no action taken, that's an area for speculation, at least until another newspaper manages to uncover how the decision was arrived at, and by whom. Go Guardian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regardless of the Guardian's motives...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My point is that the political agenda of all the parties should be remembered.
We know the law was broken; that's why the journalist got a prison sentence. However, it's not just right wing papers that used this private detective. The Mirror did, as did the Observer, which is run by the same people as the Guardian. By their own logic, their own owners are guilty of corrupt journalism. For reason we can guess at, the Guardian is playing that bit of the story down.
The larger point though is that this is a deeply political story. While it exposes probable systemic low standards in British journalism, not restricted to one paper or even one conglomerate, the political angle means this is not a clear cut example of anything much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let’s start by forcing New Corp to divest itself of either Murdock or all of its American holdings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Republicrats, Democans... you're all the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then stop walking and quacking like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well they're not, of course, and Rupert Murdoch is no exception. He became a US citizen in order to buy a US newspaper. The only exceptional thing is that his citizenship was granted in less than 24 hours, whereas it takes about five years for anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is "pure?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]