Media in the dock

Newspapers used to report the news. Today they are the news and it isn't good news. What Private Eye long ago nicknamed the "street of shame" has fallen even lower in public perceptions as a result of the latest phone hacking revelations involving the News of the World.

According to the Guardian newspaper police have found evidence that News of the World journalists deleted messages from the mobile phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler when police were still searching for her and when her family believed she might still be alive.

There were some attempts at mitigation as newspapers pointed out that the NOTW's old regime had been cleared out since earlier phone tapping allegations had been proved in court.

But some in the old regime, principally Rebekah Wade, now Rebekah Brooks, have been booted upstairs. Brooks should be shown the door at News International immediately, no more questions, leaving her free to sue her employer for wrongful dismissal if she chooses to do so. Let her tell her side of the story to the police or the Press Complaints Commission or to the civil courts when Milly's family seek damages from News International. According to an email she sent to staff today it is "Inconceivable that I knew or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations."

Like most people who climb to the top of the executive ladder, Brooks will have secured some security for herself as a keeper of corporate secrets (and possibly political secrets given her former role in the Tory Party) and we can only speculate on whether any of those could damage her immediate boss, Rupert Murdoch. Suffice to say, Brooks is unlikely to present herself as the sacrificial lamb unless her position really does become untenable. Whatever her personal knowledge of the Milly Dowler hacking, she must accept that it happened on her watch when the culture of phone tapping was flourishing at the NoW.

In the meantime newspaper proprietors and their editors must meet to draw up a code on media investigations covering impersonation, electronic eavesdropping, taping of conversations and the use of hidden cameras.

Some of these methods should be defended. Sometimes the only way to acquire evidence is to do so covertly and to do so with a degree of sneakiness. How else would we have learned of the Duchess of York's audacity in seeking to cash in on her former husband's connections? It could be argued that the sting operation mounted against her was purposefully-designed to exploit her latent greed and stupidity. Better that, however, than one designed by some foreign agency to trap an unwary target in to working for them through blackmail.

People should have some right to privacy but that right should not be extended to conceal illegal or highly questionable behaviour. Nor should organisations be protected by privacy laws other than than the privacy already extended by existing legislation.

If, for example, a Panorama reporter had not been willing to go in to the Winterbourne View care unit in Bristol with hidden cameras and sound equipment we would never have witnessed the shocking treatment handed out to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

The problem with covert behaviour in investigative journalism - and I have first hand knowledge of this, having engaged in many investigations during my career - is that a journalist can become so focused on the target or aim of the investigation that it is possible to step over the line of what is and what is not acceptable.

Some newspapers, and some companies, have dealt with these issues by removing themselves from direct involvement in illegal behaviour. A company may do so by employing a firm of corporate investigators which in turn engages with self-employed private investigators who are prepared to hack phones and rummage through dustbins. The idea is to ensure a degree of deniability and to keep any possible illegal activity on the periphery of the client organisation and beyond its walls.


When a confidential document comes in to the hands of a journalist, the journalist is concerned only to be assured of its authenticity rather the means by which it may have been acquired. There is not, as yet, an effective law against handling stolen information - one reason why Wikileaks has proved such a rich source of stories for the media.

But the multiplicity of information dispersal today means that the media must become more sophisticated and open about how news and information is acquired and used. Without seeking to defend the News of the World, it's worth remembering that phone tapping was not pioneered by journalists but by governments.

Governments would claim the moral high ground here by insisting that covert information gathering by its security services and police, is in the interests of national and domestic security. Newspapers, on the other hand, have engaged in such practices in pursuit of a good story (which may or may not expose illegal behaviour).

The media, very often, is willing to pursue investigations that, for whatever reason, are sometimes not pursued by regulators or enforcement organisations. We should thank the press for that. I really don't know what motivated the News of the World to hack Milly Dowler's phone. I dare say those involved in the hacking would argue that they wanted Milly and her abductor found as much as anyone. But that is not to condone what they did.

The media seems incapable now of policing itself. The Press Complaints Commission should have, but has not, shown some leadership over the propriety of certain media investigative methods. The way forward now is for the media to work collectively with the Government and other interested bodies to thrash out a new code of conduct for journalists that carries the weight of law. I'm not an enthusiast of public inquiries but this may be one way of serving the public interest in this case. In such an event we may find that, faced with the alternative, the public could prove more supportive of the media's right to ask questions than we might hope in the light of this latest story. At the very least it's time to see a few more heads on spikes and at least one of those should be wearing lipstick.