Should ED make a stand and boycott News Corporations NOTW

[nashoi]

NOTW could be holed below the water line now. The McCanns and 7/7 victims families now all apparently on the list, god knows how many others will be suing. The Independent's top story today will surely finish Brooks off.

[maxxi]

Wonder which will be first national newspaper to print Brooks' picture alongside damning evidence with the headline:

GOTCHA!

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> Puts the whole johaan haari thing into perspective

> doesn't it?

>

> I don't think "it was on my watch but i wasn't

> aware" is an excuse that washed with rebekka when

> she is chasing down some social services managers

>

> Aaaanyway. I suspect that what we have heard so

> far is tip of the iceberg.

Exactly right. Her claims that she's been some sort of champion of child protection, are a fucking joke!

[indiepanda]

I spotted a story on the BBC website about the hacking and was interested to see this comment by Torin Douglas (it's the closing couple of paragraphs that interested me)

"The News of the World has already started paying compensation for phone-hacking. Now it's facing another financial penalty - a loss of advertising.

Following the Milly Dowler allegations, Ford has suspended its advertisements, saying "it cares about the standards of behaviour of those it deals with externally".

Halifax and Npower say they are reviewing their options. Tesco and Virgin Media say they're awaiting the outcome of the police investigations.

Many will applaud Ford's action. But should advertisers use their financial muscle to try to influence the behaviour of the media? It is not usually regarded as a good thing for big business to threaten newspapers and broadcasters, particularly over editorial issues.

There have been exceptions. Carphone Warehouse stopped sponsoring Channel 4's Big Brother, following allegations of racism towards Shilpa Shetty. It's the advertisers' money - but are they the right people to tell the media how to behave?"

Now while I wouldn't want to see advertisers using their power to force papers to cover up stories that might be disadvantagous to them but are genuinely in the public interest (e.g. if Beko were trying to cover up the link between fires and faults in their fridges rather than offering to fix them), I am struggling to see the problem with advertisers behaving as Ford have in this case.

Ok, I suppose it doesn't do Ford any harm publicity wise to come out and say they will not be associated with a paper that behaves like this... but it also hits the paper where it hurts and I am not sure there is any other language they understand. The fact their behaviour was unethical or illegal doesn't seem to have stopped them, perhaps the prospect of bankruptcy might?

I don't really see why companies should be discouraged from taking an ethical stance or not wanting to work with those that follow illegal practices - in fact, given they have more ability to influence than sole members of the public, I'm inclined to think its what they should do.

What do others think?

[Otta]

I agree with you.

[mockney piers]

I bet you Ford end up getting a much better deal once the dust has settled, call me an old cynic, it's just I'm reminded of a certain overpaid scrotty lass from Croydon who seemed to do rather well from the whole 'cocaine photos' thing at the end if it all.

[mockney piers]

Plus every newspaper splashed with 'Ford ditch NOTW' is pretty good as free publicity goes!!!

[Moos]

Yep. Ditto the public handwashing during the first hooha of the Galliano affair. His trial has started, if anyone is interested. He'll pop up again pdq, fashion after all has a famously short memory.

[sjsl]

I'm certainly happy to see companies take an ethical stance... this is a clear case of a company pursuing illegal practices, and until a full enquiry has investigated this mess advertisers should certainly be considering their options.

And I agree that News International hasn't given a toss about what anyone has thought of them to date, but they might pay attention if they lose advertisers...

[indiepanda]

Mockney & Moos, I know what you mean... seems in this world if there's one thing worse than everyone talking about you for the wrong reasons it's not being talked about at all. No such thing as bad publicity. (I'd like to think of some exceptions to that statement.... but it's not that easy!)

I'm not suggesting Ford should be given a medal for their stance - clearly they benefit from it too. I was just surprised the BBC seemed to be suggesting there was no circumstance where companies should try to influence the media. Personally I don't mind if Ford benefit from this if it makes some shabby journalist think twice before sinking so low in the future.

It's quite hard to think of a good act that doesn't benefit oneself in some way. Even if not public something like private charitable donations can give a warm feeling of having done something to help but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make them.

[Annette Curtain]

Moos Wrote:

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

> Yep. Ditto the public handwashing during the

> first hooha of the Galliano affair. His trial has

> started, if anyone is interested. He'll pop up

> again pdq, fashion after all has a famously short

> memory.

No doubt he'll open his collection with one an ironic one of these...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Kippah-1.JPG/250px-Kippah-1.JPG

[Otta]

Ford are a business, and at the end of the day, profit will come first. If they feel that it's good business to take a moral high ground, then I have no issue with that considering the accusations here.

[david_carnell]

Oh, now I HAVE to post this:

Th values of the Car Phone Warehouse.

 

[Undisputedtruth]

How can we be so sure that the police can fully investigate the case if there are alleged payments made to police officers (corruption) issues?

[Annette Curtain]

Actually..

My worms are currently enjoying the NOTW Ryan Giggs story

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/8522/photogy.jpg

So out of the shite comes some flowers

NETTE:-S

[Moos]

Indiep. I rather agree - and the useful side-effect is that it hits the organisation in question where it hurts, so no bad thing. It's just a little irritating to see it portrayed as virtue outraged.

[Loz]

Given how uncomfortably close Dave Cameron is to both Coulson and Wade/Brooks, how close are we to having Prime Minister Clegg?

[maxxi]

Eesh! Why does that sound like President Quayle? I think scapegoats are already being rounded up.

[georgegarrett]

Maxxi - that GOTCHA post was, i hate to say it, inspired genuis....please someone mock that up and post it here.

Anyway obvioulsy the declaration to boycott the NOTW was not really that at all, but an easy way to get some negative publicity out there about what Murdoch and his mates have been up to. On a serious note when i posted this as the story broke, the BBC, CNN Europe, Reuters and a few others were leading at the top of the hour with that story, the hacking of Milly Dowlers phone. However SKY news led with 'The missing soldier who had gone missing but had been found' (not known dead at the time), then they followed with some shots of Cameron in an army canteen giving a little speech, they then ran the story about a 'light aircraft crash in devon , 1 death,' then a' job figures piece' and then 4th in the queue was a '30sec piece about unproved alligations relating to 'more phone hacking'.......

Now my problem with this was not, shock horror, that they buried the story, but that the government of the day has discussed the fact that if News Corp where to take control of BSKYB then it would be run independently mirroring the gloriius and much heralded model that is SKYNEWS !!!!!!......

That is the horror story in all this, if you ever needed a clear sign post of how un-independent SKY NEWS is? this was it.

Now some people may say "yer we know"....so what? But it is a nightmare scenario. The BBC's internal journalists are finally showing their colors and are coming out fighting against this, the Indy , Gaurdian, Mirror and Telegraph are all piling in. Now apprarently the Cons are seeing the writing on the wall, Cameron may yet (amazingly) deliver the decisive blow.

This Australian Silverback is about to be taken down by a pack of UK based hyienas, it may well be now or never , if the public get involved now and ramp it up even more, pressuring advertisers as is starting to happen, the joint Unions are also apparently starting to mobilise their grass roots, then someone may finally be able to put GOTCHA sticker right over his over sized opinion and gob.

They were minded to wait and break it all up the moment he goes, but now they are starting to think about finishing now, the time of the archaic global media mogul may well be coming to an end. They only need a little push so every bit helps.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

While you're fired up, George, do you think you could get the cricket back on terrestrial tv please?

[Loz]

The Guardian editor, Alan Rushbringer, is doing a web Q&A at the moment. The first question asked was "Can you confirm that the Guardian has never been involved in these kind of practices and are you reviewing previous stories obtained via another source to check if anything untoward took place?"

It's an hour in and he's not yet answered it directly.

Hmmmm.

[StraferJack]

Loz

I think it unlikely that any paper has NEVER done something like this - graph in the Spectator shows current available data

here

but it's not just about "the tactic" is it?

it's about how rampant it was as a culture

about the type of people they were doing it to

about how News International was able to use it's influence and size to intimidate senior politicians and the police into not investigating previously

Those are pretty serious issues

[david_carnell]

Peter Oborne has written two fantastic articles on this and I quote verbatim without hesitation:

Let?s try a thought experiment. Let?s imagine that BP threw an extravagant party, with oysters and expensive champagne. Let?s imagine that Britain?s most senior politicians were there ? including the Prime Minister and his chief spin doctor. And now let?s imagine that BP was the subject of two separate police investigations, that key BP executives had already been arrested, that further such arrests were likely, and that the chief executive was heavily implicated.

Let?s take this mental experiment a stage further: BP?s chief executive had refused to appear before a Commons enquiry, while MPs who sought to call the company to account were claiming to have been threatened. Meanwhile, BP was paying what looked like hush money to silence people it had wronged, thereby preventing embarrassing information entering the public domain.

And now let?s stretch probability way beyond breaking point. Imagine that the government was about to make a hugely controversial ruling on BP?s control over the domestic petroleum market. And that BP had a record of non-payment of British tax. The stench would be overwhelming. There would be outrage in the Sun and the Daily Mail ? and rightly so ? about Downing Street collusion with criminality. The Sunday Times would have conducted a fearless investigation, and the Times penned a pained leader. In parliament David Cameron would have been torn to shreds.

[Loz]

SJ & DC: I agree entirely that NOTW and NI should be ripped to shreds for this and that BSkyB deal cannot go through before a public enquiry. The police's role in this - especially in the cover-up a couple of years ago - has to be investigated deeply. Nothing short of a full public enquiry will suffice.

Cameron, I think, is guilty of really, really poor judgement. He may or may not survive that. I suspect he will - he is distant enough, unless more Coulson revelations come out (and Rushbringer has already said he warned Cameron personally about Coulson).

But, illegal is illegal, no matter how many times you have 'indulged'. If other papers are involved (and lets face it, if the Sun isn't involved I'll be very surprised) then they too should feel the full weight of the law.

If Rushbringer doesn't answer the question, others will ask it again. And again. And again. I reckon the Times will be first off the block.

[BrandNewGuy]

Indeed, but the thrust of the article is that pretty much all of Fleet St colludes in this behaviour by under-reporting it or not reporting it at all... and by taking part themselves in illegally obtaining information.

It's very self-satisfying to shout and rant at the big bogeymen (Murdoch, Brookes etc), but it's less comforting to realise that it's the system that's corrupt. That, of course, doesn't excuse any individual's behaviour...