This question has been around for a long time, but it looked as if it was to linger until we all forgot about it.
It was a question raised by the circumstances around the prosecution of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire.
It is also the subject of a spirited libel case currently being brought by solicitor Mark Lewis (and click there for relevant links into the PCC "activity" on the matter).
But, until last night, it looked as if the question was not really going anywhere, unless Mark Lewis's case got to a substantive hearing.
However, in a detailed article which must be read by anyone with an interest in police conduct and media activities, the New York Times has revived the question and has sought to substantiate it with supporting material.
Much of this material is from anonymous sources and not open to verification.
The Guardian has picked up the story, though it is focusing on the particular role of Andy Coulson.
(It is a feature of UK political culture that any political problem needs to be personalised before anyone will report it and anyone will want to read it, and so this is one reason why we have staggering wider abuses whilst many get flustered about duckhouses and junior ministerial special advisers.)
Serious allegations always just remain allegations; and so a due process needs to be followed in investigating them: a process fair to those involved, but also a process open to public scrutiny.
As the New York Times allegations go to the relationship between the police and the press, it is not appropriate or possible that it should just be left to their respective supervisory bodies (even if one had any confidence in such bodies).
There instead needs to be an open judicial inquiry, and the Deputy Prime Minister (a Liberal Democrat) and the Home Secretary (a Conservative) should appoint one immediately.
Public confidence in the press and the police is crucial to a modern liberal and democratic society; any without an inquiry into these serious allegations, it is difficult to see how such confidence can exist.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Posts
17 comments:
Love the way you big up a story based on anonymous allegations but don't allow anonymous comments! Surely anonymity is always a problem since the person making the allegation cannot be identified. Hence law requires openness. And journalists are creatively scurrilous.
This is a hugely serious allegation and it seems that there is a cover-up by the Cameron-supporting media. Coulson's alleged crimes also run in direct contradiction to Cameron's stated policy of promoting freedom and civil liberties.
Oh yes he does allow anonymous comments, Mr Cooke. He just asks that people use a distinct screen name so that several people all using the name "anonymous" don't get confused as just one.
Just because the source is quoted anonymously by the New York Times doesn't mean that the journalist hasn't access to full name and address, it is called protection of sources and a hard-earned right. The sources should be known to the journalists for the story to stand up.
Furthermore there are some named and several anonymous sources saying similar things.
I expect the "nothing new here, move on to Hague story" line to be parroted out, but hopefully the story will hit home.
It seems to me the reason why the previous Labour government was so unpopular with us liberals was that it enacted so many illiberal laws. However, it needed to do this because it wasn't in a position to collude with the police; the police and the Labour Party not being natural bedfellows.
I'm old enough to remember the previous Tory government. Even old enough to remember the Thatcher years. It seems clear that this government can repeal some of the illiberal legislation and give itself the appearance of an open and fair administration. It can do this because it doesn't need legislation at all.
They are on the same side: "they" being "The Man" in general, but in this case specifically the Tory Party, The Metropolitan Police Service and News International.
Don't hold your breath for any judicial enquiry.
I love the way you big up stories that have been smalled down.
@Keith
I'm not sure that the "source is anonymous but known to the journalist" is sufficient unless there is other evidence available. It does mean we have to place a lot of implicit trust in the journalists in question. Personally I'm not wholly happy with stories generated from anonymous sources without there being corroborating evidence. The allegations are obviously very serious indeed, but if the anonymous sources have an axe to grind then we will not know that.
Protecting sources which lead to other evidence is a rather different thing to it being then entire basis of the story.
Your New York Times link "revived the question" leads to the Mark Lewis blog on your site, not the NYT article.
Evening Standard have picked it up: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23873270-downing-street-dismisses-new-phone-tapping-claim.do
We know why the Sky/Fox/Paywall brigade will avoid this like rabies, but on what grounds can the BBC ignore it? Surely they've used press allegations as the basis for reports often enough in the past?
It's not as though it's a flippant series of allegations - they're appalling!
American mainstream paper journalists tend to have to have real hard evidence to show to their editors before being allowed to run this type of thing as a story. They are a lot less thorough when it comes to 'gossip' stories though.
The NYT article has been subjected to more fact checking than any story in the UK media would be and hence can be relied upon as a very significant piece of journalism. This is a very important story and should not be allowed to die until it has been fully investigated - something the Met have so far failed to do, as indeed they have in other examples at other tabloid newspapers. It is not just the NOTW that was deploying these practices... . For what its worth my own take on the situation is at http://carlosthehack.blogspot.com/
@Bender and others - link fixed - thanks.
I think the NY Times brings up everything that is wrong with British media and there has to be some process of investigative journalism.
I like how the George Eaton the New Statesman blog has said "if Coulson did know about the phone hacking then he's too wicked to be the Tories' spin chief, and if he didn't know then he's too stupid to be the Tories' spin chief."
One passage from the NYT article:
"A dozen former reporters said in interviews that hacking was pervasive at News of the World."
This shows, if anything, that the NYT journalists (remarkably three of them were allocated to this story) have done their homework.
They have probably spoken to far more people than they have named in the article, and the ones that they did name were the ones willing to be explicit and go on the record.
I think if the NYT were asked to show their sources, it wouldn't be the tawdry misquoting of someone who didn't know anything.
Anyone who thinks this is unlikely needs to go off and read Flat earth News. The dark arts chapter includes tales of several newspapers being institutionally corrupt, and to the extent where fleet street and the Met can appear as a single gang.
You've got to love the police saying they didn't notify potential hacking victims out of concern with 'privacy'. They can't have been concerned with the privacy of the potential victims, since you don't violate someone's privacy when you tell them something about themself. The only privacy interest at stake in whether or not to tell a potential victim they may have been hacked is the privacy interest of the hackers and of News of the World.
One of the earlier commenters noted Cameron's stated commitment to civil liberties, but all politicians are in favour of things like ecivil liberties, openness and transparency while in opposition and virtually none of them are interested in these things once they are in government.
Am I being incredibly naive in suggesting that a certain person, where there is witness evidence of lying during the course of a police investigation, should also be suspended immediately for that misconduct, or is it a given quality for political public relations? Allegedly.
(Jack, I'll understand if you don't want to post this, should it be considered *too* defamatory, and cause problems for your blog, besides myself. Obviously delete this part if you do post it, please)
Post a Comment