Journalism at its Worst

On April 5, 2011, British police arrested two journalists, Ian Edmonson and Neville Thurlbeck, on suspicions of phone tapping celebrities, politicians, and royals for News of the World (NotW), one of the United Kingdom’s top-selling tabloid newspapers. Edmonson, former NotW news editor, and Thurlbeck, the paper’s chief reporter, used cell phone numbers and voicemail security codes to hack into their targets’ voicemail boxes and intercept messages for gossip material.
Owned by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, NotW is known for “reporting” inside information on celebrities and political officials. Almost 3 million people read the paper, making it one of the U.K.’s top-selling newspapers and one of the highest-selling English language papers in the world.

This is not the first time NotW has been accused of acquiring information through unethical means. In January 2007, the royal editor of the tabloid, Clive Goodman, was jailed for four months for plotting to intercept voicemail messages left for royal aides and other prominent figures. Glenn Muclaire, a private investigator hired on contract by the paper, was also imprisoned for six months after pleading guilty to the same charge. In this instance, supermodel Elle Macpherson was a victim, along with Prince William, football agent Skylet Andrew and publicist Max Clifford, to name only a few. Ironically, at the time he was working at NotW, Mulcaire also ran Nine Consultancy, a company that offered a service protecting clients from media disturbance. Evidence recovered from Mulcaire’s home included a list of the cell numbers of political, sports, and entertainment figures – potential hacking targets. The two were convicted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), a law that aims to protect private parties from surveillance and investigation in the Internet age.

So far, four arrests have been made in this scandal and NotW has issued a formal apology. But personal privacy has been put into question, publicly. Are the arrests and apology appropriate consequence for the tabloid?



In a word, no. Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller have been two vocal figures in this scandal – both were victims of phone hacking. In an instance of fate, Grant met Paul McMullan, a former NotW journalist, who also exposed the paper’s phone hacking activity. After snapping pictures of him and selling them to another British tabloid, Mail on Sunday, McMullan invited Grant to come to visit his pub in Kent. Seeing an opportunity, Grant accepted. He decided to tape his conversation with McMullan, and published excerpts in a piece titled “The Bugger, Bugged” in the New Statesman. Actress Sienna Miller is suing NotW in a very public case, risking her professional future in the process (News Corporation owns both NotW and 20th Century Fox). When asked about the possibility that she could be blacklisted at 20th Century Fox, Miller responded, “I’m not really too concerned about never working for Fox because it’s about standing up for myself in a way that’s more important than anything. If that’s the case, then that’s the case. It means more to me to make a stand against that than it does anything else in my life.”

The point is that the laws regarding investigative journalism must be strengthened to fit the modern age, so maybe individual “takedowns” are the way to go right now. While the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is fairly modern, the law, or any law for that matter, is unable to keep up with the Internet. In fact, statutory attempts to protect privacy are ineffectual because of the speed with which the Internet evolves.

Two separate instances of phone hacking have happened at the same tabloid journal. While the arrests and apology are a step in the right direction, NotW itself must face some legal consequences for any substantial change to occur.

The NotW scandal was a highly public instance of privacy invasion. We only see the tip of the iceberg here with high profile celebrities openly broadcasting how their right to privacy has been invaded. Even though Princess Diana died as a result of paparazzi invasion, no formal criminal law protecting privacy for celebrities has been introduced to the U.K. In the U.S., “The Britney Law” has been put into place to protect celebrities from paparazzi harassment by designating a “personal safety bubble” for the victims from aggressive photo-taking.

Though celebrities are the ones primarily affected in the NotW case, privacy in the Internet age is a public concern. Everybody has their privacy invaded every time they turn on a computer. For example, a friend recently showed me how Google’s Gmail is not merely a webmail service – it aggregates your web history whenever you are logged in, and shows what time and for how long you were on each site. It even provides a calendar, indicating the days you were most active on the Internet in different shades of green. Not only that, Apple is tracking your locations - whether the company has an agenda or not is irrelevant. The NotW scandal has made us conscious of the possible extent of privacy invasion. Though we not be celebrities our information is still being collected, shared, and sold. Sienna Miller is taking legal action to fight for what is ethical. Why aren’t we?