The phone-hacking scandal in Britain which has led to the closure of the 168-year-old News of the World tabloid and the appointment by the Prime Minister of a public inquiry into possible wrongdoing by the management and journalists of the paper, along with a review of media regulations, should engage the attention of media around the world. Notwithstanding the absolute need for the timely and fulsome release of information on public matters by authorities, the lesson must be that the "ends do not justify the means."
As the story is being told in Britain, journalists, with the support of their management, hacked into the phone lines of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, illegally secured the medical records of his son and published them.
The fact of Gordon Brown being who he is has given added prominence to the incident, but the principle of delving in such a clandestine manner into the personal affairs of citizens would hold through for the average citizen whatever his status. So serious is this alleged violation of privacy that Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp, owner of the News of the World, conceded ground not only on shutting down such an historic newspaper but withdrawing from the attempt of his group to take full control of BSkyB. What is so unacceptable about the alleged phone hacking is the reported outcome, that being to acquire the personal medical records of the son of citizen Brown.
Now while ethical standards must be followed without qualification, there are very rare occasions in which it may become necessary for the media to at times go beyond what is normally acceptable to get information relating to matters of dire national importance. But such an exception to ethical standards does not include the medical records of the Prime Minister's baby, or the relationships of celebrities or the cellphone records of a kidnapped child. While we roundly condemn such unethical behaviour engaged in for no other reason than to satisfy salacious tastes created by tabloid journalism, journalists going after information vital to the national interest which is being suppressed by Government and other public authorities must have greater liberty within what is legally possible.
But out of what seems a completely unprofessional episode-and the British media are reporting that unethical behaviour has become common in journalism there-there could be some good to emerge yet.
The good news is that British Prime Minister David Cameron has immediately appointed Lord Justice Leveson to inquire into what are said to be thousands of phone-hacking incidents, the relationship between the police and the media and that between media and politicians, the latter suggesting that politicians too have been involved in such corrupt practices.
One report coming out of London, which makes it clear what the relationship between media owners/ managers and politicians should not be, is that for a meeting Murdoch did not enter from the "front door."
Undoubtedly, media in T&T have fought for the very extensive independence and freedom practised here. To earn such independence, journalists and media owners have resisted the pressures of succeeding governments and political parties-and that is how it should be.
One of the responsibilities of the British inquiry is to update journalistic standards and practices. As a collective group, media here need to pay serious attention to the findings and recommendations to come out of the inquiry as a means of determining how we stand in the 21st century world of media. Reflecting on ways to enhance journalistic standards would be a means of further developing our own mechanisms to protect freedom with responsibility while rebuffing any attempt by any government to repress freedom of expression and freedom of the press.