[Update] The News Corp scandal - Page 72

denphone · 14-09-2011, 07:23

Exposed after eight years: a private eye's dirty work for Fleet Street

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-2354360.html

BenMcr · 14-09-2011, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Exposed after eight years: a private eye's dirty work for Fleet Street

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-2354360.html

Hardly 'exposed after eight years'

The Guardian covered Operation Motorman two years ago for a start

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...-commmissioner

**Damien** · 14-09-2011, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange - the Guardian seems to think that investigating one alleged criminal act (interception of communications) is a good thing, and investigating another (obtaining confidential information from a Police Officer) is attacking Press freedom.

No evidence The Guardian paid for the confidential information and that was obtained in the course of investigating the former alleged criminal act you mention. While the interception of communications was a fishing exercise into people's private lives too obtain information which was rarely in the public interest.

No one thinks The Telegraph overstepped journalistic ethics by illegally obtaining the MP expenses files. That, as in the the case of The Guardian, is a precise query for information in which they have a reasonable chance of unearthing something in the public interest.

**Hugh** · 14-09-2011, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

No evidence The Guardian paid for the confidential information and that was obtained in the course of investigating the former alleged criminal act you mention. While the interception of communications was a fishing exercise into people's private lives too obtain information which was rarely in the public interest.

No one thinks The Telegraph overstepped journalistic ethics by illegally obtaining the MP expenses files. That, as in the the case of The Guardian, is a precise query for information in which they have a reasonable chance of unearthing something in the public interest.

erm, I didn't say they had paid for it* - I said they had "obtained confidential information from a Police Officer", which is still an criminal offence.

*that is the tack the Grauniad are taking as well - they are not confirming or denying they have received confidential information from a Police Officer, they are stating "we didn't pay any Police Officer any money", which is answering a question that wasn't asked, but is close enough to perhaps mislead some people into thinking they answered the original question....

**Damien** · 14-09-2011, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

erm, I didn't say they had paid for it* - I said they had "obtained confidential information from a Police Officer", which is still an criminal offence.

*that is the tack the Grauniad are taking as well - they are not denying they have received confidential information, they are stating "we didn't pay any Police Officer any money", which is answering a question that wasn't asked, but is close enough to perhaps mislead some people into thinking they answered the original question....

But that is a difference between the allegations at News International and The Guardian which is the comparison you had made. Both cases may be a criminal offence but that's where the differences stop and the details do matter.

News International are alleged to have engaged in a mass interception of private communications, with no specific public interest case in mind. It was a fishing exercise and they paid the police to do so. The Guardian broke the law but did so with confidence that they would get information about a specific issue which easily has a public interest defence.

I think that is a difference which avoids accusations of hypocrisy. If The Guardian hadn't used such tactics we may not have known about the phone hacking or the police officers accepting payments for information on private citizens. If News International hadn't used such tactics we wouldn't know who Hugh Grant has been having sex with.

**Hugh** · 14-09-2011, 15:08

I think we will have to differ on this one, D, as I don't believe "the ends justify the means".....

**Damien** · 14-09-2011, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think we will have to differ on this one, D, as I don't believe "the ends justify the means".....

What about The Telegraph's expenses expose? That justified the means surely?

I think Journalists have to break some laws but it's acceptable as long as they are after specific information and not on a 'fishing' exercise and they weigh the seriousness of the law they are breaking against the public interest in what they would expose.

denphone · 15-09-2011, 05:55

Leveson inquiry: the full list of core participants

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...t-participants

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-...l-14.09.11.pdf

Derek · 15-09-2011, 12:03

Bernie Two-Dads wants the boundaries between the Police and media to be 'reset'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14931067

Quote:

The new Metropolitan Police commissioner has said the force's relationship with the media "has gone too far".

Bernard Hogan-Howe said he will reset the boundaries between police and media following the phone hacking inquiry.

Lets see how long that lasts.

denphone · 17-09-2011, 07:39

Hacking: Met use Official Secrets Act to demand Guardian reveals sources

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...et-court-order

**Maggy** · 17-09-2011, 09:58

I understand why.

Quote:

The application, authorised by Detective-Superintendent Mark Mitchell of Scotland Yard's professional standards unit, claims that the published article could have disclosed information in breach of the 1989 Official Secrets Act.
It is claimed Hill could have incited police working on the then Operation Weeting hacking inquiry into leaking information, both about Milly Dowler and about the identity of Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and other arrested newspaper executives.
A police officer is also being investigated, Scotland Yard say, for breaching the Official Secrets Act, as well as alleged misconduct in public office, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

However why didn't the Met use these powers with TNOW?

denphone · 17-09-2011, 10:03

Well your guess is as good as mine but l would say that the Mets close ties with certain people in the NOTW could be a possible answer but what do you think.

**Maggy** · 17-09-2011, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Well your guess is as good as mine but l would say that the Mets close ties with certain people in the NOTW could be a possible answer but what do you think.

If I knew I wouldn't be speculating..

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 ----------

There will be supreme irony if there are any prosecutions against The Guardian but none against the NOW..

denphone · 17-09-2011, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

If I knew I wouldn't be speculating..

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 ----------

There will be supreme irony if there are any prosecutions against The Guardian but none against the NOW..

Nothing would surprise me .

denphone · 18-09-2011, 06:19

Met's threats to Guardian are 'direct attack on free press', say lawyers and what a load of nonsense that is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...n-attack-press