#Hackgate #NOTW #Murdoch - if you're on Twitter these are the go-to hashtags for proving you've got your finger on the political pulse. If you're on any news site, you're urged to visit the live streaming of events; the latest resignation, confession, lawsuit. My view on the whole debacle? Disgraceful, absolutely. Complete invasion of privacy? Without a doubt. Something we'll probably forget about or get used to? Pretty likely.
Think of the issues that have raised our national hackles in the past few years; oil prices, cash for influence, expenses, bankers' bonuses...for a while we're appalled, outraged, demanding justice, or at the very least all the juicy details. And then? Business as usual. Should we do more or realise that we're a fickle bunch?
It was an intrusion too far - way too far - when news surfaced that the News of the World commissioned a private investigator to hack into the voicemail of (at that stage) missing teenager Milly Dowler, with the hope that an exclusive would be forthcoming. What was forthcoming instead, from this despicable action, was hope. But it was the worst kind of hope for the family of a missing schoolgirl - it was false hope. The British public was absolutely revolted by this flagrant disregard for a family's privacy in the direst of times - so we started baying for blood; the News of the World's, the Murdochs', Rebekah Brooks', John Yates', our newsagent's for selling the News of the World...
Fast forward a week or two and we've had a select committee hearing; whose sole purpose seems to be to satisfy the public's wish to humiliate the Murdochs and hear the words, "We were wrong." As it turns out, what with #piegate and #slapgate, even if the Murdochs had prostrated themselves on the floor at Louise Mensch's feet and cried remorseful, earnest tears we wouldn't have noticed, we were all too busy giggling at Jonnie Marble's "You naughty billionaire" insult. Rebekah who?
Having an ethical, fair media is something we believe we're entitled to, just as we believe we're entitled to politicians who aren't the bedfellows (reluctant or otherwise) of said media. So should we vote with our feet at the next election or our newsstand? By all means, if you genuinely consider your chosen alternative can provide you with the principles you crave, then get those shoes on. In all likelihood though, as you pause to tie your metaphorical shoelaces, you will hear the barely audible sound of hands being rubbed together in glee; and if you're lucky, you'll catch a whisper of incriminating emails, phone records and Facebook friends being deleted before they welcome you with open arms.
I don't think we'll vote with our feet; neither will many of us protest, sign any petitions, write any letters or do anything more taxing than try to think of a pithy line on Twitter to demonstrate our displeasure. By August, there'll be a new hashtag, Murdoch won't be synonymous with Lex Luther and our national outrage will be directed towards something else.
Yes, we'll still respond with a grave shake of the head if it comes up in conversation, just as we do when someone reminds us of the moat we cleaned for Douglas Hogg, or the fact that we might have to fork out £9,000 to send one of our kids to university. I'd love to believe that this whole affair will bring about a change, but that's not fair on the thousands of upstanding, ethical people working in journalism and politics. Saying they're all as bad as each other is our way to feel comfortable with doing nothing, to excuse our short attention span and- OMG did you see Kate Middleton's outfit??
Follow Jo Rourke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jo_rourke
Dovid Efune: Israel Without Rupert Murdoch
coming into play and full force now is the power of the internet, the way people use
it to get information. They are not depending on any single source of information or
news outlet. And that is one the reasons why quality journalism all of sudden and
rather unexpectedly is so successful, if we consider Nick Davies as one good example,
working for the small Guardian.
Murdoch used to rant about Google, about the theft of his quality content produced by
his creative geniuses (now done and out, sacrificed and facing trial). He even predicted
or wanted the internet to end.He knew the dangers of free information, of the net for him.
http://socratesbooks.blogspot.com/2011/06/bye-bye-media-conflict-google-net-and.html
It´s easy to forget, though, that there are people who still rely on traditional press rather than the Internet. An enormous percentage of elderly people don´t have access to the Internet (or are loath to embrace new technologies). They are too easily forgotten, IMO.
------------------------------------------
The problem of being so blase and worldly and cynical in a nice chummy way like you is that you are offering a blithe rationalisation for being a consumer and denying that one is a citizen.
I assume, that like most of us your are a gradualist - you believe that change is incremental and slow, and that occasionally there are critical periods where change can be speeded up and where it can become change that is substantial rather than merely in the detail.
We now have an opportunity to engage in rapid change. So what do you do? You throw it away? Do you do this in other areas of your life or do you reserve this self-disabling process only when you are required to be a grown-up citizen?
I agree in part with the idea of moments where change can be speeded up, but I still think that it takes many years for it truly to become imbedded and real, rather than words on a page, so while I believe in theory that we have the opportunity to change how things work, I'm not sure how we go about it or if the average citizen wants things to change, if it doesn't really affect their everyday life.
As for reserving "this self-disabling process only when you are required to be a grown-up citizen" - I'm not quite sure how to answer this one...if I say I only reserve it for when I'm required to be a grown-up citizen, that would imply that I don't consider myself a grown-up citizen all the time; if I say I apply a self-disabling process all the time it's not that glowing a character reference either!
Thank you again for your comments, Eric - really thought provoking and I enjoyed responding.
Jo
It's about the Law and how it is upheld; It about power and how it is exercised; It's about who runs this bloody country, us or a foreigner with far too much influence over our affairs. Its also about basic human rights to privacy and being free from having it invaded by journalists or whomever, merely for them to profit by.
So I hope that this is not all conveniently just swept aside as so much hot air and yesterday's news. That would suit many journalists and politicians, I'm sure. Who now they've had a fortnight's fun and games with this story, will want us to move on to another agenda they'd like to set for us to be concerned about.
Such cynicism merely provokes the same in the General Public, which then corrosively fans out into more contempt for our Society and how it operates. Dangerous I would say.
Also, it's fair to point out (which I didn't in my blog!) that there is a human element to the hacking as well, i.e. it wasn't just voicemail hacking and technology related - when it came to getting information, in many cases this came from good old fashioned dishing the dirt, by members of the public who had been trusted with confidential information.
As for what happens when the investigation starts to uncover more scandalous behaviour, I reckon we will be captivated again...for a while. Sounds like a good topic for a blog - whether or not media coverage, public opinion and patience will have changed by that stage.
Thanks again.
J
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QjzS1i_NYk&feature=related
If the Watergate scandal were to happen today, for example, I am sure it would not be a scandal. Murdoch´s empire would blunt its effects with media spin, first of all. Then the story would be buried under a wide variety of more sensational stories. Maybe religion was once the opium of the masses, but now it´s sports and celebrities. There would still be an ample group of readers wanting to know, "Whatever happened with Watergate?" But they´d be met with media silence and wouldn´t know how to combat that silence. Workaday folk are now too busy being productive to fight, anyway.
So, now we hear mostly what Rupert Murdoch wants us to hear. We won´t hear about the fate of Iraqi refugees, but we will hear about the starving in Africa; we won´t hear about the Dubai bankruptcy, but we´ll hear about every ailing economy in Europe; and we´ll hear about Al Gore´s attack on a masseuse at a hotel, but we won´t hear that the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.
Murdoch is protected by his empire and political influence. He will dictate his own fate, whether we like it or not.
That´s exactly what worries me.