I hope the band Modest Mouse does not mind that I borrowed an album title for this column. I thought it apropos in light of the maelstrom which quickly shuttered the 168-year-old News of the World tabloid scandal sheet forever. What began as a slow leak as far back as 2009 accelerated to a blowout in the past few weeks with shocking allegations which have rocked the staid British establishment and, let's be honest, made a lot of us in the rest of the world feel a whole lot better about ourselves. Central to the ooohs and aaaahs is the phone-hacking evidence. The thought of a newspaper using the services of a private detective to effectively exhume a murdered teenager simply to inject new life into a macabre story...well, as the British might say, it is just bloody awful.
One must consider though, prior to this and other revelations, many in the UK will have greedily consumed stories of that ilk over their English fry-up. That, one would imagine, would form, in part, the justification of such ghastly tactics: "The people want to know." It is inconceivable that even with the hammer he wielded, in an iron fist, that media tzar Rupert Murdoch could have known about or sanctioned the invasive and evil practices of the News of the World newspaper. The only legitimate question, for him anyway, is: should he be allowed to stay on as the CEO of News Corp, the much larger holding company with interests worldwide? He certainly seems to think so and most emphatically conveyed this to a British parliamentary committee this past week. Murdoch did not waste too much breath in denying culpability and appeared quite comfortable with his abrupt "no!" when asked if he felt responsible for the scandal which has reached not only the doorstep of Number 10 Downing Street, but is inside and seated for tea.
The dour atmosphere of that parliamentary committee grilling was punctuated with brief levity when a so-called comedian, "Johnny Marbles," nearly had his marbles kicked in by Rupert Murdoch's young Asian wife. She reacted almost with instinct and delivered a swift left hand; no one is going to mess with this woman's money clip. Even as the smell of singeing flesh emanated from that chamber, British Prime Minister David Cameron was invited to return home from a foreign trip to be rotated over the open spit that was the House of Commons. His equanimity was impressive in the face of a blistering assault from opposition members of Parliament, but I have always thought any defence that hinges on "I've not been found guilty of anything yet" remains assailable. Cameron is in the crosshairs of his opponents over a decision to hire former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, who resigned from the paper denying any role in the phone-hacking affair but accepted ultimate responsibility.
Cameron has since stated that "in hindsight he would not have hired Coulson." Perhaps a modicum of foresight might have been more appropriate given that phone-hacking allegations had been in the public domain prior to Coulson's engagement in the government. In the final analysis, the News of the World was not closed down because of its nefarious practices; it was jettisoned in order to protect the real prize, an ongoing bid to acquire a 61 per cent stake in Sky by News Corp. Notwithstanding impressive circulation figures and lofty profit margins, however, the News of the World constituted just one per cent of the Murdoch galactic empire. As the days progressed, however, and the situation worsened, compounded no doubt by the arrest of Rupert Murdoch's flame-haired proxy, Rebekah Brooks, the takeover bid fizzled in favour of perhaps the pursuit of the more modest "mere survival."
Naturally, the circumstances which triggered the implosion of the News of the World tabloid has invited introspection by many other countries which, not unusually, struggle to achieve that balance between good governance and ethics in journalism and the untrammelled right to press freedom. This is a far more complex ideal in modern times with the evolution of media which have now expanded beyond conventional definition. Reporting the news is no longer sufficient; the line between news and commentary is so blurred now that it has created a new genre of television programme. Individuals who have absolutely no experience in journalism drape irrelevant credentials in the guise of "news with opinion" when all they are doing at the end of the day is shoving one agenda down your throat. That would be fine if there was sufficient counterpoint, but who the hell has the patience to keep up with all of it anyway?
Not surprisingly, Fox News, which is part of Murdoch's media stable, is quite fed up already of all of this chatter about phone hacking. "Fair and balanced" is their mantra, though it is difficult for them to maintain that perception with the likes of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert around. I don't know how they do it, but The Daily Show managed to pull a clip from an interview being conducted in 2009 by senior journalist Stuart Varney on Fox News with News Corp head and his boss, Rupert Murdoch. The excerpt went something like this: "Mr Murdoch, there has been some concerns raised about phone hac..." "I am not discussing that at all today." "Of course, Mr Chairman, thank you!" Technology has also contributed to the dramatic shift in the way news is received and perceived. We are almost at the point where "news" is whatever you think it is, as opposed to what media houses tell you it is. The blogosphere is perhaps the most prominent example of this. Citizen Blogger presents his or her perception of what news is to a constituent community and the online society is free to accept or reject.
There are, of course, significant down sides. Blogging is also used by hate-filled individuals to pursue warped agendas against others in society. If you think that is harmless, think back on how the Rwandan genocide was triggered. A concerted radio campaign espousing violence formed part of the catalyst that very nearly resulted in the eradication of an entire people. These things are happening here already. Our relative inexperience with laws governing Internet content means we are more vulnerable than you might think. The News of the World disaster has demonstrated that the media are not infallible and, as such, if you are to maintain the right to publish without state oversight, then media houses must be doubly sure that all is done to keep the public trust. "Free press" sloganeering does not protect the innocent who are trampled beneath our self-righteous marching feet.