Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Sam Parker

Not Everyone at The News of the World Was Guilty

Posted: 07/07/11 16:14

Earlier this week, as Twitter let out its first collective gasp of horror over the News of the World revelations that brought about the end of the paper, I commented:

Feel for everyone working at #NOTW who didn't hack a missing girl's phone, i.e. 99%. Not fun on the inside when something like this breaks.

The replies I received dragged up some well-worn debates surrounding journalism and the ethics of picking who you work for. Broadly speaking, those who agreed with me worked in the media themselves, while those on the outside of the industry were unanimous: my sympathies were misplaced, and anyone who worked for News of the World knew exactly who their paymasters were and deserved a portion of the blame.

True, in our rush to analyse what phone hacking means for the industry we shouldn't ever lose sight of who the real victims are. But once my shock at the callous treatment of the Dowlers began to subside, I had no problem feeling separate sympathy for the hundreds of sub editors, designers, juniors - and yes, journalists - sat in News of the World HQ, feeling as though they were sat uncovered beneath the world's biggest hailstorm.

I once worked for a magazine when it too become the subject of intense public disgust. Through a sequence of oversights that had nothing to do with me or the vast majority of the people I worked with, a 'joke' made it into our pages that was viewed as misogynistic and offensive. Not as grave an error as the sustained illegal activity News International stands accused of, true, but it gave me a taste of what the News of the World staff will have been feeling this week as they approached the end.

I worked on the publication's website, and for three days my job was completely put on hold as my superiors scrambled to find an appropriate response to mounting piles of angry emails, news broadcasts and withering broadsheet articles. I sat and watched an endless stream of abuse role up Twitter's normally friendly pages, informing me that everyone in my office were disgraceful excuses for journalists and worse - women-haters, who must be sat thinking the whole thing is funny.

The whole team was devastated. I've never experienced three less 'funny' days in my life.

On Twitter this week, two of country's most high-profile columnists Caitlin Moran and Giles Coren have individually reported being in some way 'blamed' for Milly Dowler affair by readers, simply because they work for The Times, another of Rupert Murdoch's papers.

But even journalists of their power should not be held accountable for mistakes perpetrated by others who happen to work for the same company. People always demand others take a moral stance when controversies occur - stop advertising with them! Boycott the paper! - but do people really expect someone to quit their job, or not accept it in the first place, because they morally object to some of the things their employers do, or may do?

Should everyone who worked for the Labour government have been blamed or expected to quit over the Iraq war? Think of all things we'd have missed out on, and the good people we'd have lost, if that absurd scenario had actually occured.

Journalism is an incredibly difficult nut to crack. When I moved to London, with no financial support and no contacts book, I took every chance I could to get paid. The notion of 'picking' my employers was laughable.

'Would you take a job with the Mail?' is a common fantasy question among idealistic young journalists, as though, no matter what the role, it would morally reprehensible to join one of the biggest and most successful digital publishers in the country.

Well I know I would. Would I write inflammatory, offensive opinion pieces for them? No. No more than I'd dream of hacking into a missing girl's phone to get them a story. But I'd go there and do the best and most ethically sound work I possibly could within my own role.

Just like the vast majority of the staff at the axed News of the World, who will this week have felt as sickened and depressed by this awful scandal as you.

 

Follow Sam Parker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/samparkercouk

 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
19:15 on 08/07/2011
This whole sorry affair shows that the written media are in urgent need of some regulation. Just like in its televised alternative, newspapers must be forced to produce its material in accordance with the rules of impartiality. This would rid us of the vile Sun/NOTW crusades that give lynch mobs a good name. BBC journalists don't hack phones (or at least it hasn't proven to do so) and as such must be held as the case where regulation has succeeded. Also the PPC needs to be given some teeth to deal with the issues that have arisen with the politicians removing any bias to which it might have.

The free marketeers and Murdoch 'lackeys' may have you think that less regulation is necessary, but I believe it is just the opposite that will remedy a very messy situation indeed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
13:12 on 08/07/2011
When you have to use i.e. 99% in a story, you lose credibility
14:20 on 08/07/2011
I didn't use it in a story, I used it in a tweet which I then quoted in a story. Colloquially, '99%' means 'the vast majority' but uses up less characters.

I think it's pretty clear I was making the general point that almost all of the staff didn't hack a missing girls phone, rather than trying to give an accurate statistic - although given that Millie Dowler's phone was hacked by a private investigator some years ago, it's probably not that far off the mark.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
14:29 on 08/07/2011
You have no idea how many reporters or staff were involved
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:10 on 12/07/2011
I think you will find that a simple "most" uses far less characters (and more correct)
06:55 on 08/07/2011
What is really amazing is the lack of any critical reflection and the lack of
intellectual sincerity. A rag that had to pay libel damages every so often,
rightfully so. A rag that tried to thrive on body snatching that could not be more
extreme, exploiting the drama and feelings of people who had for instance a
relative murdered or other bad things happening to them. And so on. And
calling those working for such a paper innocent!
The interesting and ever repeating aspect of cynics in some kind of power
position where they could do what they wanted, overrun all objections, and
then all of sudden are out of their positions is the wailing and whining stunt
they pull off then. Nobody can break in tears like such cynics.

It comes really like pain relief, like a breath of fresh air that there are others
who are markedly different. Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter who wrote
the book "Flat Earth News", a great insight Fleet Street, and whose
journalistic worked helped to expose the scandals of NoWT.
Or Melissa Harrison who organized the Twitter campaign that called
on the advertisers to withdraw their ads:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-twitter-campaign?INTCMP=SRCH
23:45 on 07/07/2011
Sam Parker – This 99% you are referring to... they don't read their own newspaper?
00:01 on 08/07/2011
I said that 99% didn't hack anyone's phone. Yes I am sure they all read the paper. I don't understand what your point is, sorry.
01:13 on 08/07/2011
samparkercouk – Just wanted to clarify your comment. Are you saying 99% of the people who worked at the News of the World were completely unaware of the malfeasance being done there?
23:19 on 07/07/2011
This is a part of what you accept when you work for a major corporation. The political decisions that a company makes aren't always going to fit with what you want nor are you responsible for everything this company does. I work for a company whose CEO publicly backed the Conservatives at the last election. I didn't instantly resign as I need the job to make ends meet and no company is going to exactly share my political views. Similarly the behaviour of the company in the past is not my fault. If it began to do morally reprehensible things now I may consider my position but I don't forsee that happening. Unfortunately (especially in today's economy) money talks and in an industry like journalism you take whatever you can get.
22:18 on 07/07/2011
Back in the 1980s I had the misfortune to be in a school play that was covered by the News of the World. The "story" they published was awful - every piece of factual information was outright wrong, and the whole tale was misreported in the most blatant way, the paper's only interest was to create a sensationalist piece regardless of the truth.

My small experience was, of course, in no way comparable to the truly terrible things the paper has been doing in the hacking scandal. But it taught me an early lesson that the NotW has no interest in truth, fairness or accuracy. It will happily lie and misreport anything in order to sell copies. Its only interest is its own financial self interest and damn anyone who has the misfortune to be caught in its gaze. I have no sympathy for the "journalists" of the News of the World. Even when not hacking into the phones of war widows and the families of murder victims, they routinely ignore the most basic decencies, they publish stories they know to be false at every turn.
21:50 on 07/07/2011
I can't see what the big problem is - if you read the News of the World, then life on benefits are a real easy number and the journalists who wrote articles about "dole scroungers" and "benefit cheats" should look forward to a really easy time signing-on.

More seriously, this works out well for NI as running the Sun seven days a week allows for better economics of scale, removal of duplication, delaying etc.
20:46 on 07/07/2011
Having spent some time looking at the NOTW website to see why it was the biggest paper in the UK, I'm bewildered why anyone would call 90% of what's on there "journalism." Entertainment, maybe.

I suppose you can rationalize anything for a paycheck. Even working for a tabloid like NOTW. Just don't expect anyone to accept that it's journalism with a straight face.

There will be a lot of people less entertained by the demise of NOTW. They just won't be less informed.
14:31 on 08/07/2011
It depends on your definition. I don't work in news, so for me, I write more to entertain than anything else. I still consider myself a journalist - although you'd be entitled to disagree.

In terms of 'proper' journalism - i.e. uncovering truths, informing accurately, etc. - I am sure NOTW journalists would argue that things like the cricket scandal last year are bona fide examples of that.

Although, for the record, I'm not and never have been a fan of the paper (or tabloids in general) and agree with you broadly. I'm not here to defend their content, just some of the staff who have lost their jobs. Thanks.
20:28 on 07/07/2011
At last a bit of empathy for the innocent employees. However, looking at the rest of the hacks I am reminded of "when thieves fall out ....".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
17:56 on 07/07/2011
As the Germans say "went with, caught with, hanged with" (it sounds cooler in German, I expect)
18:54 on 07/07/2011
I guess it translates as 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. But my point is that the majority of the staff didn't 'live by it', they just happened to work there. Should clothes shop assistants be culpable for sweat shops?
00:02 on 08/07/2011
samparkercouk – Why doesn't Murdoch keep the "#NOTW who didn't hack a missing girl's phone, i.e. 99%" and fire the bad 1%?

"Should clothes shop assistants be culpable for sweat shops?"

Good question. I refer you to the Wikipedia entry on the "Milgram experiment" on obedience to authority figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Here's a video of the experiment from:

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v18688074hgZdg5Dt
05:03 on 08/07/2011
If you became aware of illegality and wrongdoing, don't you have an obligation (morally if not legally) to report it to the authorities? Did any of the staff of News of the World ever do so?