Britain’s Watergate? Mea Culpa!
The shock is less the content of the News International disclosures, than the fact that finally any of it has now been disclosed. The Twittersphere is littered with questions today: “Why didn’t you do more? Why didn’t you tell us”. They are questions I ask myself.
It was under Mrs Thatcher’s Premiership that standing in Downing Street, covering another story altogether, I spotted Rupert Murdoch going in by the front door. I saw him again going through the door under John Major and again under Tony Blair. I did not think nothing of it, but I was doing something else. I did not see him going through David Cameron’s front door, because by last year the entrance was more commonly through the back entrance.
So much of the “action”, even the “hysteria” surrounding the Murdochs and News International appeared to be about commercial resentment, and envy. And yet….I, like others worried about a man with quite so much media power having quite so much access to the highest echelons of political power. There was also the developing oddity, that whilst successive governments regulated other markets and prevented the likes of Tescos from getting close to a 40 per cent share of those markets, there appeared to be little resistance to allowing Rupert Murdoch that kind of share of the media market.
We knew too of the police links with News International. A prestigious police officer would retire and end up with a column in the News of the World – Lord John Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Chief, and the former anti-terror boss at Scotland Yard, Andy Hayman. This was more about influence than payments. Although Channel 4 has done some brilliant stuff on elements on what we now know, along with others too, there was less willingness to throw the vast resources that would be required at a wholesale take-apart of the Murdoch empire. Few broadcasters and few newspapers (with the notable exceptions of the Guardian and Private Eye) wanted to take it.
More from Channel 4 News: Has Rupert Murdoch been thinking the unthinkable?
As for payments to the police for information – by papers other than the News of the World, yes we have long known that that went on too. From my experience, it affects almost every force in the land.
The relationship between print and broadcasting has always been tense. We both resent and depend upon each other “out on the street”. But these days, the power of print is reducing so fast, that that tension is becoming less obvious. This is one element in what has happened with News International. Amid the dog-eat-dog world of journalism, despite News International’s vast multinational well connected strength, it has become more possible to risk questioning what is going on.
Thus hindsight provides us with this damning tableau. Media moguls with undue influence at the highest political level (as admitted by David Cameron on Friday) became too close. The police manifested a huge reluctance to investigate the notes of News of the World’s hired sleuth Glen Mulcaire, (admitted by Assistant Commander John Yates over the weekend); and the often dormant complicity of the wider media world beyond. What a fertile garden for weeds to take root. This infernal coalition of failure is precisely why this does indeed represent Britain’s Watergate moment. It may not involve “plumbers”. But it has involved us, we the media ‘gardeners’, and we should have done more to assault the weeds on our patch.
Follow @jonsnowC4 on Twitter.
Related posts:
- Christmas is a-coming for m’learned friend!
- Is there a conspiracy anywhere within the hacking scandal?
- What is the cost of the Sun's backing?
- The M word and m’learned friend
- What reception will the Pope receive in Britain?
There are 34 comments on this post
Jon at least you admit that the police and media were intertwined in the selling and reporting of information.
Personally i see little wrong with that except that the Police risk the charge of being bribed and it is a disciplinary offence to so take money.I may be wrong but i am not sure there is a criminal law to cover it.
I also see little wrong with NI or any other media organisation having a political stance , as long as that stance does not affect policy. Being friendly with the leaders of such organisations and getting your political message across some would say is good PR.If you are going to do it,is it not best to go with the biggest player?That goes for Labour or the Tories.
If that closeness breaks competition law ,then that should not be allowed.If it means hiring past executives for who they are ,the Parties are in dangerous waters.I have no great feeling about NI .I like their titles and they cater for a range of the population and their interests.I can see the likes of the Guardian ,BBC and Channel4 having good reason to complain trying to look after their own vested interests.
Watergate? debatable.It might lose Murdoch Sky.So what?
Jon,
That took some balls after all this time.
Congratulations and well done.
Now – DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I hope at this stage of your professional life you aren’t going to stand there merely wringing your hands.
Surely this time enough is indeed enough?
Jon – whats your view? Are all newspapers up to this kind of thing? Are the public blind to what actually goes on? A blog post on this pls?
Like everyone else, on a larger scale we all go with the flow and so does the media.Even those who think they are going it alone, to some extent are following their ancestors and others throughout the globe.
So the point is as more people realise that they have a voice and are not going to be ignored when they shout for justice, the dirty secrets cannot be as effectively covered.
There is a zenith of tolerability and unspoken understanding that what is Ok for one is not ok for another.We have reached that apex and having got to the top of the hill have been knocked back to start all over again, but this time with more openess , transparency and egalitarianism.
If this sounds like a Niezche theory, well yes, that is what I have in mind.Why then Jon are you seeming to take responsibility for a collection of intrusive wrongdoers?
Well as nice as this piece is you have written, apologies after something that has happened are pretty much meaningless.
People are always scared to take on the big players and so I am sure someone in your news group was scared to bother to uncover the scandals that are now waiting to be uncovered.
So rather than saying sorry in a round-a-bout way, why don’t you tell us ALL the dirty secrets that are going on.
Stop holding back and bring down all the corrupt and powerful people for the good of the people who don’t have the privileges you have access to.
Show the scandals, sing and dance and shout about them and make everyone aware of them as it’s about time the people had a say on what goes on.
What were you doing in 1986 John — when politicians, police and News International were conspiring with each other to sack 6000 staff and crush two unions?
That partnership was convenient back then because the victims were working people who were getting in the way of power and profits.
It has carried on for 25 years without you taking a blind bit of notice as Murdoch has helped successive Governments sell policies, economic models and even wars that have been disastrous for ordinary people.
This is nothing like Watergate. But you should have done more.
I agree. Except that for me this is worse than Watergate. Because what has come loud and clear has been the silence. Proof of the silence of the media. And when the press keeps silence, our democracy sinks. It is their silence that keeps the corruption going. That´s why I think it is worse than Watergate.
Somebody (cannot remember who, sorry) once said that the tabloids, the gutter hacks, was the price we had to pay for the freedom of the press. And as the freedom of the press is essential for a healthy society, I´ll always defend it. How else are we supposed to learn about what’s going on? Google only finds what has already been written.
The scandal has just proven to us that we have paid the price for that freedom (and what a price, good lord), but got NOTHING in return.
Only Private Eye, the only beacon of constant challenge, and in this particular case The Grauniad, have paid us back.
It’s good to see correspondents giving true recognition to Private Eye for its consistent and uncorrupted investigative stance.
As the rest of the media is forever in some sort of hock to some sort of power somewhere, our politicians are all blubbering fools in the face of wealthy success and our police are unspeakably incompetent or institutionally corrupt (or both), it is all the more important to sustain Private Eye as the sole organ we can trust to dig deep without fear or favour.
I have subscribed to the Eye for many years, simply to play my part in sustaining it – at around £25 a year, that’s a small price to pay to expose the truth.
I urge fellow bloggers to do likewise – lots of the Eye’s content may be puerile dross but that doesn’t matter, it may be our only chance to secure this vital check on all Britain’s ‘authorities’, both governmental and commercial. We never know when we may really need it.
I agree. You should have done more. In fact, that is precisely your function and no other. You are not there to entertain us. You are there to inform and, by informing, keeping democracy healthy and alive.
If the media now just do a “mea culpa” with the same meaning than a politician “accepts responsibility” nowadays (which means absolutely NOTHING happens), then you will be not just condoning, but aiding and abetting the spread of corruption in our society. And you know I am not exaggerating.
So, I wish the media well. If after this scandal it regains its true purpose, we will know it. Because so much will come to light and be questioned and challenged.
Agreed. No doubt some sections of the media are themselves too deeply embroiled in the scandal to do anything to atone for it. But those who simply turned the other cheek do now have a chance to expose all they know and get the festering wound that is the corruption of our govt and law enforcement by the media out in the open.
Let’s hope they do as govt alone will not – as you say a politician ‘accepting responsibility’ these days means they do absolutely nothing except mouth the words.
Cameron did not accept responsibility for taking on Coulson – if he had he would have resigned by now. He claims they became friends whilst working together so he doesn’t even have the excuse that he was doing an existing friend a favour by giving him the job. For a senior politican to take on someone with a murky past ‘to give him a 2nd chance’ either shows massively poor political judgement or that he owes someone a favour. Either of which makes him totally unsuitable for high office.
Shouldn’t there be procedures to follow in employing staff? Who else was interviewed? Or was Coulson just awarded it on Murdoch’s request? Lots more answers needed in this grubby affair.
I read somewhere that Osborne recommended him. Osborne. Imagine. The quality of the recommendation. The clueless guy who protects bankers, tax havens and corporate non-tax. The one who doesn´t come down like a ton of bricks when he hears of lunches between comms companies and the Inland Revenue that result in “no need to pay taxes”. The guy who plays Treasury Monopoly with our lives.
The govt is preparing to privatise the country à la Russe within days: sell the silver dirt cheap, make a few people millionaires, ruin the population.
I wonder where the reborn media will be. Hope not on holiday.
Osborne? Well that doesn’t surprise me, another with a complete lack of understanding of how the man in the street thinks – or maybe just such monumental arrogance that he doesn’t care as long as he can get away with it. He should resign too.
Well what an anticipated totally political stance.The offence of hacking occurred during the Labour years.It was resurrected during the Labour years.Milliband has employed and is still doing so , an ex NI executive with a dodgy past.Despite a complaint to the Met he has not been investigated.
I am afraid you both have such a onesided stance that it calls your judgement into question.It is as unimpartial as the channel 4 news.
I think Cameron made a terrible mistake in hiring Coulson , even though nothing has been proven against him at the moment.How do you know Osborne recommended him .Is it alleged, hacked or guessed information?
I think Osborne is more in touch with the man in the street than you give him credit.I believe most accept the need for stringent cuts to get out of the mess Labour got us into and has left us with.If you want any proof of that you only have to look at the last union led public sector
strike promising to rival the 1926 general strike and the lack of support it received.
Who is out of touch?Certainly the marxist lead unions are.
Interesting post Jon, but I think ‘we’ the public are just as culpable as the media for turning a blind eye to NI’s dodgy dealings. We’ve all stood by and watched as Sky has hived off all premium entertainment and the Sun & NOTW report less news & more gossip. We don’t seem to mind so long as everything is cheap and easily available; quality, integrity and particularly honesty are no longer valued. I really hope NI’s BSkyB deal falls through,coz we really need a viable alternative to them, but I doubt it will. Think some members of our government have too much to lose to stand up to them.
The fact this scandal was uncovered is a tribute to the highly competitive UK national press. But, I fear it is only the tip of the iceberg with other papers also involved.
As for Murdoch, whatever yoy may think of his politics, he’s possibly the smartest and greatest media tycooon in the past 100 years. His fault was loosing his hands on grasp and relying editors more engaged more on a personal ego trip than a quest for good journalism.
News International Supremo Rebekha Brooks told her colleagues she didn’t resign because she didn’t know anything about the alleged crimes being committed by News of the World editors and staff. And, she might be telling the truth.
Since moving upstairs from being a hands-on-editor, in long-standing British fashion her job would largely be concerned with schmoozing high-level figures, something that apparently was her forte.
Yet, practices and methods emanate from the top and filter down to the shop floor. Brooks’ history of tenacious to desperate sensational journalism set a tone at the News of the World that became the benchmark and seal of approval for outrageous antics which culminated in massive illegal acts.
http://www.hard-truths.blogs
Jon,
Maybe it’s time that our politics takes a turn away from the media. Mr. Clark above was saying it’s just good PR. but really shouldn’t we look to just reporting the facts? Isn’t that what C4 news prides itself on doing? Should our newspapers move back towards that model and have just opinion in the opinion pages, rather than dressing it up as “news”, like the Telegraph still manages to do?
No one organisation should have the ear of government to quite the same degree. Lobbyist should also be shown the door too, or at least curtailed. Voters need to be able to believe that government is working for them and not self-interest. Voter turnout will remain pitiful and we risk democracy itself. Journos have done the job this time, but once the knee-jerk laws are put in front of the self-interested of parliament, will they be able to in future. I think we do have the laws, but they need to be enforced by a non corrupt police force, which still isn’t happening. the Met; even after Steven Lawrence and other debacles are still in the toilet. I have 100 other things to say, but I’m nearly out of words. Sorry if this is not greatly coherent, but I’m livid, NOT at you Mr. Snow!
You are correct that Murdoch has too much power. But he doesn’t have as much power as the BBC. Break them both up.
“. This infernal coalition of failure is precisely why this does indeed represent Britain’s Watergate moment”
If anyone cares a damn about democracy, privacy, justice, and free speech in the UK then they had better hope this isn’t our Watergate moment… though it is looking similar. The FBI (cheifly lead by the collosal hyporit of Hoover) was systematically tapping, tracking, recording and watching anyone they wanted. Hoover wanted dirt on anyone and everyone and ran a decades long operation to achieve this. the main justificationw as likley “to fight commies” but quickly became an attack on democracy.
COINTELPRO
There is a wikipedia page, but there is also Chomsky:
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/chomsky.htm
Watergate was just an operation within a wider criminal consipracy that had everyone from law enforcement, the justice, and politics looking somwthing awful. But Nixon took all the heat &attention and the wider scandal was barely touched upon by the worlds press (though the UK might have tried to make a go of it at the time)
Lets not make tNoW our Nixon, there are many more rats &sickening “chuminess” needing to be exposed. The UK can do better that the US.
Absolutely. If we let the little crack close with just the fingers of a couple of small fry caught, the system will remain untouched. To respond better than the US did we need a better press and a better judiciary. The average person, even the buyer of tabloids with a brain softened by the deluge of lies and crap absorbed, is capable of discerning the “public interest” concealed in a child’s medical records. The crack must remain open.
Marverde more people buy tabloids than any other papers and you grossly insult them with those comments.What newspaper do you consider does not indulge in lies and crap,and if you dare say the Independent or Guardian where is your proof?
I’d like to see more of our national institutions, watch dogs and regulators work for the national interest rather than the narrow self-interest of the small club they happen to be part of.
How can we be expected to trust politicians, journalists, police officers or regulators ever again if they are prepared to look the other way when it is convenient for them… or to consciously decide against protecting the interests of their voters, readers or markets – without fear or favour.
Exactly right. And very well put.
The words “Tall Daisies” and Schadenfreude spring to mind. This story has all the makings of an Ayn Rand novel.
I hope for all those doing the kicking that no hypocrisy involved as they can be sure of retribution.
Thank goodness for The Guardian and Private Eye.
In this case, both BBC News and ITN News have been found wanting and it seems that they need to put the public interest back at the centre of their mission and to invest more in gutsy investigative journalism.
Overall we are lucky that the public service remits of BBC and Channel 4 have protected us from total domination by one man…
Good piece, Jon, but don’t beat yourself up too much – there’s been plenty of good journalism out of C4 and you have been at the heart of much of it.
One thing I think should come out of this is a knighthood for Nick Davies, the Guardian journalist who has stuck to the story through thick and thin and without whom none of this would have come to light.
I shall write to my MP tonight and suggest it, but as he is a tiny bit right wing and might not think it a good idea, perhaps you could put a word in where it counts.
Right wing,Saltaire? From where do you get such phrases?
I haven’t followed the reporter you allude to,but i do understand the Guardian has followed the story from the start, though i am not sure who initially broke it.
Did they follow it to have a go at the Murdoch empire(they have reason)?Or was it to highlight alleged Police corruption?There is possibly that.
Did they obtain information from illegal sources?
Are they trying to protect the media or get it censored?
It is a shocking story,and no one comes out of it well.You reccomend a Guardian journalist, others Private Eye.
Personally i would support Private Eye.
Agree (again) with yr paras 1/2, Sam. Don’t think Nick Davies would accept an Establishment knighthood though, even if offered. If it doesn’t already exist, C4 could perhaps create an award for fearless journalism, with Nick D the first recipient.
Jon’s/the media’s ‘mea culpa’ moment should be a wake-up call for us all, not only about extent of corruption/press-political power relationships etc but more importantly about the need for active citizenship.
Parliamentary representation through elected – and certainly non-elected – members has made us passive consumers of democracy. ‘Leaving it up’ to MPs – local councillors etc – has long been an inadequate model. We need a more responsive and inclusive political system. A start would be to support a recall law of MPs if a majority of constituents is unhappy with her/him. An organisation called Unlock Democracy is currently campaigning for this. Maybe worth taking a look at their website.
From today’s Guardian re effective condoning by a judge of selling of illegal data: http://t.co/okMFoFw – by Nick Davies and David Leigh, of course.
We get the democracy – and press – we deserve.
Meg if inuenda and suggestion rates a Knighthood we are in a sorry state of affairs.The attempt to link the story to NI stinks of prejudice.
Some in the US see to the heart of the matter: “Democracy, aided by sunlight, has broken out in Britain… punching a hole in the tiny clubhouse that had been running” the UK.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/business/media/a-tabloid-shame-exposed-by-honest-rivals.html?_r=1
“In truth, a kind of British Spring is under way, now that the News Corporation’s tidy system of punishment and reward has crumbled. Members of Parliament, no longer fearful of retribution in Mr. Murdoch’s tabloids, are speaking their minds and giving voice to the anger of their constituents. Meanwhile, social media has roamed wild and free across the story, punching a hole in the tiny clubhouse that had been running the country.”
Mr Snow wrote:
“…and we should have done more to assault the weeds on our patch.”
Yes you should but did not because you and ALL the other print and broadcast media made use of the stories, exposes and the like published by the News of the World.
How often on a Monday morning did papers, and the broadcast media, cover stories that had been printed in the NotW the previous day? The ‘quality’ sections of the media would of course get on their high horse to condemn this gutter journalism and tut tut at the gutter press but would make sure they included every salacious detail between each ‘tut’.
So even if the press or media did not indulge in this sort of illegality they still, at one remove, made use of the information that came from the illegal acts.
News International will bear the brunt of the criticism but the rest of the print and broadcast media are tainted by association.
For evil to triumph etc etc.
Senior officers appear before the
parliamentary select cttee suporting each others’ alibis and trying to put the blame on News International.The object is to try and divert the public’s attention before the storm breaks and the extent of police corruption comes to light.They will hope that the backlash will fall upon the lower ranks and overlook their failures .They have a blind eye and have the telescope held up to it.
When News International was building its media empire in USA aligning itself to to right wing Bush adminstration and its gungho foreign policy,its is no surprise that NI had British politicians sucking up to thier boss and NI in turn for supporting Labour in 3 general elections wins made labour take us into two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aligned to the USA, costing this country millions of pounds and loss of sevicemen/women lives.
“But it has involved us, we the media ‘gardeners’, and we should have done more to assault the weeds on our patch.”
What are you going to do about it from this point on?
This and Watergate are nothing compared to the huge conspiracy to pervert the course of justice which has occurred in the case of Dr David Kelly. Falconer, Hutton, Gardiner, Neyroud, Grieve are all in it up to their necks as well as Blair, Campbell, Scarlett, Goldsmith, Morgan, Straw, Hoon.
Jon, you are in a position to do something about this huge scandal.