The decision to close the News of the World in the UK because of the fallout from the phone hacking scandal shows the importance of ethical behavior and public credibility for media firms.
The paper had been hacking the private communications of celebrities, politicians, crime victims, and even relatives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and then spent four years trying to cover it up by paying hush money and—according to some reports—bribing police officers to ignore its crimes.
The paper, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., was Britain’s largest selling Sunday newspaper until it spectacularly unraveled in recent weeks. Continuing revelations of illicit activities and the announcement of Parliamentary and police investigations led advertisers including Ford, Sainsbury, Lloyds Banking Group, Virgin Media, Dixons, and Vauxhall to pull their advertising.
Perhaps it was embarrassment—but it was more likely the loss of revenue, the loss of almost $3 billion in market value for the parent company because of declining share prices, the hundreds of millions of pounds in damages that will have to be paid, and the fact that the paper’s meltdown was endangering Murdoch’s takeover of BskyB—that led him to kill the paper.
Unfortunately, the scandal shows that some journalists and news organizations will go to any length to get a story, no matter how disgraceful and unethical it may be. Fortunately, the number of journalists who will go as far as those at the News of the World are limited, but the outrageous conduct highlights the growing chasm between those who believe everything should be public and that journalists have a right to do anything to get information and those who believe in a right to privacy and a right to be left alone.
The culture at the News of the World that led to the behavior shows that pressures on organizations to put their interests above those of the public needs to be resisted. It is hardly a culture reputable news organizations and companies should emulate. Not only the reputational costs—but the economic costs as well—are far to high.
Blog Archive
Popular Posts
-
At long last we seem to be getting to the bottom of just why Graham Davis seems to think that he is an "independent journalist." I...
-
I propose to coin a term today – propagandicide. It refers to a propagandist who just doesn’t know when to back off and in making his advoca...
-
In her latest column against sustainable energy, Margaret Wente writes that, “Big Wind is among the biggest lobbyists in Washi...
-
Having once stepped over the line and commented on Fiji politics in the context of the abrogation of the Ghai Commission’s draft constituti...
-
A counterpropagandist's work is never done. . . . Dear Editor, The next time you publish a letter from Graham Davis of Suva, Fiji ("...
-
Correction to the media: Jodie Foster was never "in the closet". All her friends, family, co-workers and many in her industry kne...
-
Last night Frameline hosted one of the funnest trans music parties ever called "Trans Party" at the chic hot spot " Supperc...
-
All too often lately the major broadcast groups have been firing able and talented people to save money. Last week CBS pulled off a double f...
-
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning vulgarity on the airwaves -- you know, Bono using the F-word in an unscripted br...
-
As an economist, Wadan Narsey has a good grasp on the centrality of journalism in a mediated society, if not on the exact processes by which...