A writer by any other name?
Apologies if this short post on a critically important subject is in any way inappropriate.
Hopefully, you are all following the NotW exposé. (Ok, the connection to here is tenuous but journalists are writers too.)
I worked at NI in Wapping for three years in the early 90s. Bungs and corruption were rife in that organisation then, probably always have been and clearly are to this day. This is not at all in the 'public interest'.
We will, hopefully, see the Murdoch minions forced to air their dirty washing in public over the next few days or weeks - it should be a breeze for them, they've had plenty of practice airing other people's dirty washing.
Murdoch is currently attempting a take-over of BSkyB. This will extend his wide influence over our newspapers into TV broadcasting. The government were to decide on this takeover tomorrow, though I suspect that decision will be delayed under the circumstances.
We have an opportunity to prevent that take-over now. At least until a proper enquiry has been conducted over these recent claims. In any fair society the results should prevent the take-over indefinitely. But in this case you never know. Murdoch has powerful allies, from the PM down. He's got away with some outrageous stuff in the past and could possibly swing even this.
Please take a moment to add your name to the petition at 38 Degrees https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/murdoch-deal-petition and lend your weight to the public gound-swell of disgust and mistrust. There is a potential tipping point here. Take your opportunity to contribute.
Passionate rant over.
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
103 Comments
I hope you're right about a tipping point. The power exerted by the media, and the press in particular, has grown to ridiculous proportions, and true to form, the Great British public has sat back and let it happen, let them dictate our politics and our culture.
The press has always been politically aligned, of course, Tory Telegraph, Labour Mirror, and so on. But I also believe that it, spurred on by the political attitudes that were embryonic in the early eighties and now seem to have supplanted any other form of reason, has systematically undermined the values and the intelligence of the UK, whilst holding itself up as a bastion of taste and decency, an arbiter of what's right and wrong.
Good investigative journalism - the MP's expense saga, for instance - is all to the good. But the same public interest reasoning that supports such important reportage is used to justify all manner of tittle tattle and tripe. I heard an apologist for the News of the World on the radio yesterday, claiming that it was tight and proper that journalists should pay the police for information. And the example he gave to justify criminal behaviour? In so doing he'd discovered where the daughter of a celebrity was sleeping rough and begging. How very public spirited.
People can make a difference, can change the way the press behaves. But only if they act collectively and positively.
Sadly, I doubt much will change. But I hope I'm wrong.
Some newspapers have *always* used methods the rest of us would find odious. They were able to convince us this was in our interest. Bullshit! It was about selling column-inches. Breaking 'stories' before the competition. Nothing more.
A wind of change is afoot, of this I'm certain. It's strength will grow in forums like this and through organisations like 38 Degrees - there are others. Let's make sure we do what we can to add our voices to it.
Perhaps an insider may write an expose in ten years time and we can all sadly shake our heads over it. Rather like invading Iraq, nothing will happen to the culpable except that they will get rich.
Shit, I was in a good mood a few minutes ago.
According to an ex-journalist who I saw interviewed on the BBC news recently, the Press Complaints Commission is completely impotent when it comes to making any changes or imposing any punishments on errant newspapers. So I think it will be interesting to see the effect on the NoW now that its regular advertisers have started to put their contracts on hold. I suspect that it's the loss of such massive revenue that will really hit the paper hardest - and will do so quickly - rather than this string of alleged phone hackings.
Good to hear from others who've had direct experience of Murdoch's 'way'. From what you outline, you have every reason to feel cynical - you've seen the dirtier end of this shitty stick.
In my mind, I almost agree with your conclusion. In my heart, however, I'm the eternal evangelist when it comes to situations like this. The right change requires the right action. Well done for putting your mark on the petition. :)
I have signed and written, and will continue to do so. TFx
We'll see what happens this weekend. Certainly, NotW will be carrying less advertising. Let's hope its regular readers boycott it too. As Alan pointed out so eloquently, Murdoch is a ruthless, dirty and resilient peice of work. But there's more than one way to skin a cat! Tell all your friends to prepare for a fight! :)
Tf, I'm from Liverpool. If you're from Liverpool you NEVER buy the Sun. Ever. Why? Because of their coverage of the Heysel and Hillsborough disasters. In other words, The Sun has been boycotted by the majority of Scousers for over 20 years. Because we believe the Sun is evil. Now the light is shining on the hidden world of News International.
Like you, I don't know many people who read NotW - I've cured those that did long ago. :) But now I'm ready to approach complete strangers (and the local newsagents) in an attempt to persuade everybody of the truth. Just in case the story that's unravelling at the moment is not enough.
I imagine there will always be readers who don't care how the secret information has been discovered, just as long as they can read it with their morning coffee. And sometimes it must be screamingly obvious that it's been obtained by nefarious means. Not that there is anything new in that, of course. Before the advent of mobile phones and email accounts, some journalists used to go through people's dustbins looking for salacious, headline-grabbing bits of dirt. And the printers' presses rolled overtime as a result. That's why I said that we get the press we deserve. It's been like this for many years. Unfortunately!
At the same time (as we've discussed in relation to the publishing sector on these pages) the old and established ways and the monoliths that maintain them are showing signs of crumbling.
Things are changing, of this I'm certain.
By the way. There is NO WAY in the world that the Editors of the NotW (which include Peirs Morgan, Editor when I was there) did not know this was going on. Little fishes won't do in this one.
Spangles is so right about Al Jazeera, I've been watching it online for the last year or two and it's just fantastic, totally different from what we get here (with the honourable exceptions of Newsnight and parts of the Guardian.)
The worry for me, as with all the "****gates" that blow up in the media from time to time is that nothing is ever done to change things in the long term. We'll hear a lot over the next few days from senior politicians, police and regulators about "reviews, commissions and inquiries" and about how "robust" and "transparent" they'll all be but frankly I've heard it all before. The big stinking elephant in the room in so many of these recent events- phone hacking, MPs expenses, the Financial Crisis, the Iraq War- is our economic system. Neoliberal, monopoly capitalism as has been practiced in the US and UK for 30 years and imposed on most poorer parts of the world (especially those with resources) has at its heart the defenestration of state and public power which has been voluntarily handed over to private interests by all political parties. When private corporations become more powerful and more wealthy than our pooled ability to rule and regulate our own society, that's when people like Murdoch (who has never paid a penny of tax in this country in his life) can hold five successive Prime Ministers of this country in his pocket. What depths has our culture sunk to when the moral arbiter in these scandals, the decisive blow that tells us that Tiger Woods has bedded one too many cocktail waitresses or the News of the World has hacked one too many phone, is the point when faceless, amoral corporations decide that they will pull their advertising revenue from a tainted brand? Funny how they still advertise in the Sun isn't? The News of the World will probably just be rebranded as the "Sunday Sun" and we'll move on to the next scandal.
Wow this cynical ranting is contagious!
Oh yeah, I've belonged to 38degrees since expenses, they're brilliant aren't they?
Apparently two website names have been purchased by an anonymous source in the past two days; TheSunonSunday.co.uk and TheSunonSunday.com. Fascinating!
I'm still of the sincere opinion that we're watching a sea-change. Not just in this case but in general. Unlike in the past, we're all watching the dramas unfold these days. We have platforms like 38 Degrees (as you say, a great resource) to carry our message. It's easy to imagine business as usual, the Sun on Sunday, etc, etc. Because that's the way its alway been. The point about rapid change (as I've said elsewhere) is that its rapid.
Yes, nahual, apparently there is already a newspaper in the North East called The Sunday Sun, so the general speculation is that the Sunday version of The Sun will have to be The Sun on Sunday. And it does have a good ring to it.
I agree with Spangles et al that we get the papers we deserve and accept. Plenty of people bought NotW for the gossip, something to while away a Sunday morning and lining the cat tray by the evening.
Remember the hounding of Princess Diana? Plus ca change.
I think it was Judge Pickles, who said sometime in the 80s, during some furore over personal privacy: 'The Public Interest is not the same as what interests the public.'
Quite.
38 degrees are doing a great service, as are organizations like Avaaz.
One of the things my cousin likes about coming over here from America is the chance to hear real news from the BBC, instead of the Fox and Murdoch rubbish they are fed with over there. I've had to tell him a number of times that the Beeb no longer have the standard of journalism he remembers from his youth. People like Al Jazeera give a fuller picture.
The 'writer' in my title refers to journalists and the most poignant aspect of today's events has to be the sacrifice of so many innocent people's livelihoods. The loss of the paper as an institution is perhaps sad to some but my heart goes out to the staffers.
Jettisoning so many family incomes and a national icon is stunning in its audacity. It really does show the world the ruthlessness with which Rupert Murdoch and his top executives make their decisions. It also shows us all how high they believe the stakes really are.
Murdoch dumped NotW for two reasons. The first is to try and distance himself from the stink. The second because he could see a catastrophic profit slump (on top of the other challenges already facing the newspaper industry) and decided to cut his losses.
So far as the first reason is concerned, we simply can't let that happen. There is *absolutely no way* the senior people at News Corp were unaware that this nasty and hypocritical stuff was going on. This is our time and we have to take every opportunity to voice our opposition to (and disgust in) this organisation's culture. Whilst the second reason might (at the extremes of the imagination) be construed as good business sense it is uncaring in the extreme, to say the least.
Since the Wapping strike of '85, Murdoch has expanded NewsCorp into a hugely influential, global media corporation. And he wants (a lot) more. We should see, over the coming days, just how unscrupulous the decision-makers in his empire really are. They are not the 'media' this country needs or deserves.
Personally, I'm getting ready to bombard my MP with letters and sign just about every anti-Murdoch petition I can find. I'm now treating it as open war.
It seems that our nation's journalists have no ability to resist the opportunity to descend to the gutter and rake some shit. This was a general press gathering and they behaved like scum. I neither approve or disapprove of Mr Cameron, but I am fairly certain he did not sanction the hacking into the telephones of teenage murder victim's families or any of the other acts allegedly perpetrated by self seeking bastards. He may have been lied to. I have been lied to and it is disappointing.
It seems to me that there is a much wider issue than the News of the World. The lid is finally being lifted on the behaviour of the press in this country, the stench is spreading and they don't like it one little bit - any of them. So they go for the one lifting the lid. If they are all being tarred with the same brush, perhaps it is deserved.
Some strange shit did happen at that time and we are wondering what might come out over the next year or so. Let me tell you, it's not a nice thought. Not at all.
The arrogance and hubris of this leaves me almost speechless.
Where does one find this blog? I may be moved to comment.
There's a The Media Show special on Radio 4 at noon, so I'm about to tune into that. I think it's going to be fascinating.
Here is the link to the Campbell blog. I'd suggest refraining from reading it while eating or drinking anything:
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2011/07/08/the-day-i-tried-to-talk-to-david-cameron-about-doing-some-of-the-things-he-announced-today/
Cameron hasn't yet been in power long enough to have been responsible for a hundred thousand plus deaths and hundreds of our own young people being killed in aggressive wars justified by lies. Gut feeling is: I think he is trying to behave honorably right now, with the bounds of his being a politician that is. But they will drag him down into a dirty scrap for his own survival if they can.
Mr Campbell. I am an ordinary person with the benefit of a good education from the days when such could be had in this land. Also I hope a modicum of intelligence. I read widely and I work in an industry where misrepresentation, exaggeration and sometimes downright lies are a commonplace. As such I have come across self-serving drivel before. Were the generation of such material to become an Olympic event then I would back you in any campaign to represent our nation as I feel sure you would be a medallist, if not the winner
I do hope the general public doesn't allow itself to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors of today's press as they point the finger at Cameron employing Coulson. It's not in their collective interest for there to be any serious investigation into the press's dark arts, because I bet News International isn't the only newspaper company to tap phones and pay the police for private information. But of course they don't want us to know that.
Alan: I will be watching and waiting, completely agog.
Piers Morgan?
I keep starting a comment but so much is up in the air it's hard to imagine the outcome. Clearly James Murdoch is 'coming of age'. Almost certainly he was responsible for the decision to close NotW. Unlike his Dad he doesn't have a nostalgic take on the printed page.
As I type, Goodman has been arrested again. That has to hurt. He's already done a stretch so he knows the drill and can't be keen to go back inside - perhaps they're expecting him to squeal. Coulsen presumably has to answer charges which could result in a period of imprisonment. Brooks, apparently, has already offered to fall on her sword but Rupert seems to have an uncharacteristic soft spot for her.
Its clear that the authorities will want to talk to a lot of people, not just the NotW management. So hopefully, the Sun will not escape scrutiny. As to the proposed BSkyB acqiusition... well the first objective - to get the decision delayed - has come off. Will this prevent the deal indefinately? Probably not. Vigilence is still the watchword.
Interesing times, indeed.
Let us not forget that the old nickname for Fleet Street was the Street of Shame.
I went away and had sannys but got side tracked by harry potter new release as my friends got my ticket to go see it.
I'll watch the news later.
This string is so interesting though I'm hard pressed to move away. lol]
:o)
I expected the guys at the top to have kept a tighter hold on the reigns than this and for it not to have gone belly up as it seems to have.
We all knew it went on and still goes on. And we all knew who was to blame.
But I'm suddenly wondering if it's a good thing or a bad thing.
Oh, I'm thinking too deeply into it all now, and getting back to my book instead.
I'll pop back in later.
Some months ago, I looked into some Victorian events in which journalists seem to have been the major participants. Among the names involved were Samuel Smiles, John Passmore Edwards, Monckton Miles Rowland Hill et, etc. These were among the great and the good, the movers and shakers of the period. There must be similar names involved in journalism today. how about about Martin Bell?
But I do remember reading Anthony Trollope and one of the themes of his novels had been the power of the press.
News Corp is a rogue culture. They think the rules don't apply to them. When you enter the Sun offices in Wapping, for example, you do so through an archway which says, in big red letters "You are now entering Sun territory." (At least thats how it always was.) For me it recalls the 'gang tags' I grew up with in Liverpool. Graffitti'd on the walls you'd see things like "You are now entering Tiger Bay territory." with groups of youths hanging about to make sure you were 'respectful' and not from a rival gang. Once in their 'manor' you're wise to stick to their 'rules'.
As to who judges/monitors/enforces. It's a good question. Of course, in any reasonable world we'd expect our 'democratically-elected' government to take responsibility for it... even if some non-elected group (like the PCC) did the actual work. Except they can't see the splinter for the plank in their own eyes. And they're as susceptable to the bully-boy tactics as anyone else.
So... the answer? Well, it has to be us!
I've never been so certain in my all life that we can do this. 38 Degrees handed in a petition of 110,000 legitimate and qualified (checked for validity) names of people objecting to the BSkyB take-over. Avaaz, apparently, submitted more. One of the deciding factors in the closure of the NotW (which, let me say, I think was a terribly callous over-kill and certainly other motives were involved) was the fact that almost all of the advertisers pulled. Why? Their clients (us) were expressing their outrage in droves... strongly - popular opinion has never been so significant or so organised.
Its easy in this world to say thing like 'Here we go again." and pull the blankets over in the opinion we 'can't do anything about it.' Same old, same old. No! As Frank Gallagher says... "This is our country now."
And that is quite apart from any damage limitation exercises being carried out by News International.
James, the heir-apparent, is of the digital age. At least that's how we're meant to view it. (We're told it was he who finally persuaded his trad Dad to off-load the paper.) And the media deal this scandal is threatening to derail is far, far more lucrative. (BSkyB's £3.4 billion revenues compared to NotW's £4 million - don't quote me but the figures are in the right range.) No contest.
As for merging it with the Sun. It's poetry - in 'high corporate' terms, of course. All the facilities are in place. There's a pool of eager ex-staffers queuing, cap in hand, to do the extra shifts. So long as they can keep The Sun out of the scandal and manage to swing the BSkyB deal its a win-win.
Which is why I've turned so evangelical on you Cloudies. :) Because we have a say. And we can't allow this to happen.
Eventually it may spread to other publications. This could run and run.
It would be difficult to catch the perps if their own communications were the only evidence. Fortunately that's not so. There's a legion of people out there who were involved or know stuff but don't work for the papers (police, royal aides, detectives, etc). There are also (already) some seriously disgruntled ex-employees. Let's have them out in the open, singing like birds. :)
Coulson's almost definitely prison-bound (he's said he didn;t pay police in the Tommy Sheridan case in Scotland and that he has in cases in England; either way it appears he's committed perjury, either under Scottish law or English. Cameron, meanwhile, has said that it was his personal decision to appoint Coulson as Head of Communications. Which brings his judgement so far into question that if we had a decent opposition, we'd be looking for a new PM now (which would play very nicely for Mr Clegg). I think it's still possible that this could be an outcome by the end of 2011 anyway.
Rebekah's going to be forced to resign once she gets before the Select Committee. Which they've said they'll force her to attend, even if Murdochs senior and junior refuse. Which will leave Murdoch's operations in the UK without a Head (make no mistake, James Murdoch needs Rebekah almost more than Rupert does).
Meanwhile, it's completely likely that, having closed the cash cow newspaper, News Corp could pull out of the Times and/or The Sunday Times too; both make huge losses and were propped by the NotW.
As to the theoretical Sun on Sunday - what's the betting Richard Desmond or similar isn;t already planning to launch a new Sunday tabloid before the summer's out?
And on and on. Fascinating!
"The criminal, guv, he's not cooperating."
"Oh dear, we'd better let him go then."
"Dammit! That's another one who's slipped through the net."
Utterly pathetic!
Yes, I imagine that Rupe is desperate to avoid any US investigation into his business practices, as I gather that it could leave him $100 million out of pocket. And counting.
Personally, I still think this is the beginning of the end for News Corp all around the world. The fall-out will make the repercussions after Robert Maxwell fell off the side of his boat look like a little local difficulty.
So you believe that Robert Maxwell fell off his boat, do you? Interesting. I'm still waiting for him to pop up in South America. I expect Rupe will shortly.
And yes - Ed is indeed W&G extra material!
Whisks, great question/point. Yes, the lovely Rebekah was indeed the Gorgon who mercilessly battered Sky's on-screen 'hard-man' in a notorious 'domestic'. She gave him a fat lip. They seperated soon after. I'm afraid I gloated - terribly weakness, I know, but this was high drama 'reality' of the very best kind. In common, blokie parlance, she has to be a nightmare. I often wondered if she foamed at the mouth. I bet she did. :P
Spangles. We missed each other by a year or two! I worked across three of the Murdoch papers until 96 and was based in the offices of NotW. Mystic Meg's column was being printed in Sunday magazine, NotW's then insert. I met her. Nice lady. But she looks older in real life. ;)
As for Maxwell. Not on the same page as Murdoch when it comes to slipperiness. A dunderhead who wasn't careful enough about who he pissed off. I'm convinced he died at the hands of Mossad. Either directly (they pushed him overboard) or indirectly (they invited him to jump himself). Probably the latter. (Oops... another group now hacking my phone and email accounts.)
As I write, Neil Wallis' arrest is being announced. Of course, the interesting thing about this chap is he's been Deputy Editor of The Sun (til '98) and of the NotW (til 2007 when he became Exective Editor). I don't think he works for Murdoch any more. Hopefully he's preparing to sing like a canary.
'Perhaps it's karma. Just maybe it is due to little Ed Milliband, who in the space of a week, has seen his chance, claimed the high ground and grown a pair, or as he would put it: "gwowd a bare".'
Can't help feeling sorry for the lickel guy. Suspect that the 'bare' he 'gwowd' still need to drop yet, though. (Is it me or are politicians getting younger?)
The siege of Fortress Wapping seemed to be more about ending the restrictive practises of the print unions - closed shops etc - rather than regime change at the top.
It seems quite likely that the 'Times' will cease to exist - as a buyer might not be found for such a 'loss-leader' product.
Life is a bit disappointing for me as, though family research, I uncovered a great-great grandfather who wrote leader articles for the Sunday Times - under a pseudonym. This was in the 1840/1850's when the paper was of a liberal disposition. He and his family then went on to run the political department of the 'Daily Telegraph' which had the same owner. This was in 1856. I wonder if the present owners would wish to know that their political editor had edited 'The Republican' when Carlisle was in jail for sedition. There had been such a struggle for the freedom of the press it seems a shame that this will end in such a pathetic fashion and for such a cause.
I had been under the impression that 'The Daily Telegraph' was the first 'penny' newspaper and gained popularity though it's strong political reporting combined with popular news articles. 'The News of the World' is seldom mentioned.
Yes, I do understand what you mean about the Miners vs Print Unions. The mid-eighties were, indeed, something of a watershed. Although I do believe that any 'tipping' was in the direction of the 'establishment', particularly Murdoch, who was Thatcher's 'darling'. Let's be clear, though. Murdoch simply took advantage of the political climate to cut costs and wages. His interests have never been humanitarian, so far as I can establish.
So far as the history of the 'Press' is concerned, let's face it, Murdoch's intervention in the 60's saw a sea-change. What happened subsequently has, in the main, little bearing on the proud history of papers like NotW. Murdoch came, conquered, then went about the business of dumbing-down and firmly establishing a self-serving 'news line'.
There's a classic philosophical / politlcal conundrum about how states should most effectively be run - I'm not talking about 'fairness' here, I'm talking about effectiveness.
On the one hand you see the despotic dictatorships (Stalin being one example, China's oligarchy another) which are relatively easy to control if you have the power - you kill, maim, incarcerate and intimidate... people will get the message, get out of the way and let you get on with the important business of State rule - or filling your pockets.
At the other end of the spectrum ('liberal' democracy) things are not so simple. If you educate people and enfranchise them (with a say in the decision-making) you have the opportunity for revolution at every unpopular decision. There's a frustrating potential for the populace to get in the way of 'good governance' - just as they're doing now in places like Greece and Syria. The answer to this is sophisticated propaganda. You convince people to make the 'right' decisions for themselves. No terror, no costly secret police, informer networks or murder squads. What you need is an effective media - and you can even offload the cost of that onto the private sector.
Murdoch has always known this. In a 'free' state, the media is the cornerstone of 'persuasive' politics.
Of course, in a democracy there has to be a lot of trust - we expect our representatives to be accountable, transparent and honest. But Murdoch is not an elected representative. He has the power of the media, carefully acquired, nurtured and instilled with his own self-serving agenda. He can raise his own political elite (Thatcher probably benefitted the most from his largesse) whilst at the same time undermining and destroying those political representatives who act against his interests. He is, in short, a 'propaganda dictator' - my words.
As a 'free' citizen of a 'democratic' state in which he's built incredible influence (and wants more) I, for one, believe he needs to be outed and stripped of his assets. Its OUR media, not his!
As I write, Rebekah Brooks announces her resignation. Personally, I was hoping she'd remain a senior executive of News... and be tried in that role. Now she can become a 'vulnerable' member of the public thrown to the wolves by a heartless corporate organisation - the 'cancer' at the heart of News which has been cut out. The fact is the 'cancer' IS News.
The BBC is our (as in licence payers') media, but newspapers are private businesses trying to make money, aren't they? As a member of the public, who has not worked in the industry, my impression is that most journalists will employ dubious tactics to get a story. I also find it hard to believe that other parts of the media did not know this was going on, and if they did, why didn't they do more to bring it to our attention? The answer must be either they are scared of Mr Murdoch, or they are doing it themselves, or they think it's ok. The police seem to have known it was happening, and turned a blind eye. The politicians seemed to know it was going on, and turned a blind eye. And on some level, the public probably knew it was going on, and turned a blind eye. A line was crossed, but we never took the trouble to define where the line was, so it is hard now to appear too outraged.
What can we do to prevent companies growing too powerful? When a society allows the lockerbie bomber to be released in order to secure an oil deal, you know something has gone awry.
In answer to your first question. This is OUR media because this is OUR country - OUR state. Not a white-supemacist, National Front country... a progressive, cosmopolitan, tolerant country. A State which was once the most democratic in the world. A State who's (free) education system was once the nexus of the western world. We are, indigenous or otherwise, the epitome of (reasonable) self-determinsm. People the world over look to OUR country as the preferred place to live.
We are outraged (quite righteously) by the revelations of the past few weeks. My point, simply, is we should expect the media we deserve. Free, open, honest. A media that serves our country, not the bottom line.
I believe we all accept that journalists live on the edge. That is their role. We give them trust and we accept the influence of their words. Their role is to 'seek out the truth' on our behalf. The Murdoch clan have manipulated and misused the trust we've placed in them. They have done this because their interests lie in their own acquisition of wealth. (Let's not dilute the point by focusing on the 80:20 status quo.)
It's because it is OUR country that we have a responsibility... we, ourselves! And in these times of global communication (as opposed to times past when we were disenfranchised by 'old boy', feudalistic constraints) we need to be sure. It is OUR country. OUR State. We can (and must) influence the decision-making, rather than handing it off to people like Murdoch who (quite clearly) don't have the interests of OUR country at heart.
Do you think there is scope for a publicly-funded newspaper?
In my opinion the BBC is the best and most impartial media organisation that we have, and therefore if we had a newspaper run by a BBC-like organisation, it might be the best route to getting reliable news over breakfast.
I'm sure the petition you've drawn our attention to has had some influence in this case, but i'm not sure it provides us with the means to create a free, open and honest media, does it?
I am less surprised by the profit-driven behaviour of our newspapers, than by the decision of our taxpayer-funded police and politicians to cover up the phone hacking goings-on, if indeed that is what has happened. The police were not outraged when provided with a sackful of evidence about phone hacking, so why should they be outraged now?
http://youtu.be/Kbe3Uf6-EMg
Click here to sign up now.