Tipping Points in News

I have enjoyed the unfolding scandal of News Corp over the last week. There is something gloriously pleasurable in seeing the over-mighty brought down to size, and the squirming of those who had become too close to powerful friends in their own self-interest. Schadenfreude is a wonderful word for a wonderful emotion. Watching thinly disguised schadenfreude on the BBC has also been a great pleasure – those boys deserve a break. And hats off to the Guardian for persevering long enough until a breakthrough came.

As for the best outcomes from here, as usual the Economist has got it spot on, in two clinical leader articles this week. They make a series of valid points.

First, they point out how news is changing, in some ways back to how it was before mass media, driven by social networking and personal choice. On balance this is good, but it carries some risks, and it is mainly up to us as individuals how we handle them.

Next, they say that heavy regulation of the UK press as an outcome to the scandal would probably do more harm than good, since it would muzzle the most useful aspect of journalism, in which wrongdoing is exposed regardless of status. In a democracy, there is bound to be a messy relationship between the press, the judiciary, the police, the politicians and the public, in which each group needs the others and risks of patronage exist. The press have an important role, and we should hold our noses and let them play it.

Third, they focus on the failings in this case of the police. The law was broken by the News of the World, there was an investigation, and the investigation failed miserably despite ample evidence. Were the police too nervous of the press? Or were the politicians the ones who told them to go easy? In either case, it is shameful, and requires reviews, learning, and consequences.

Next, the Economist strongly suspects that other papers were also acting illegally, and the whole sector should be investigated. Partly this is based on the way News Corp has shamelessly tried damage limitation. Even more telling has been the lack of intensity in following the story among News Corp’s competitors. It is hard to explain this unless they have something to hide themselves. Again – well done the Guardian, and may this mark a resurgence in its popularity.

Fifth, David Cameron is excoriated, less for the judgement issue regarding Andy Coulson, but more for his inadequate courage now. Surely a judge led enquiry should look at the whole industry, as honourably (and maybe naively) demanded by Ed Miliband. Cameron is still playing the politician here. And maybe he is even closer to the Mail than to News Corp?

Next, the Economist thinks that the Sky News takeover is a red herring. If it was right to give the go ahead before, it is still right now. Just make sure people who commit criminal acts are punished and removed from responsible positions.

And that leads to the last point. The acts were shameful and criminal, and should result in jail terms, for those that committed them, those that let them happen, and those that tried to cover them up.

Well said, the Economist. As usual.

One aspect of this that fascinates me is the concept of a tipping point in news.
This story is old. It bubbled along for years, hitting the news for a time and then going quiet. True, many other papers were not that interested in developing it, probably for their own shameful reasons. But last week a tipping point was reached, the dam broke, and chaos has ensued.

In this case, the key was the revelation about Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked, and the possibility that the action gave the family false hope. In the public eye, that moved the crime from merely technical – judging to do a bit more than legally justified but for an understandable reason (selling papers) and only harming those who arguably deserved it – to callous and hurtful. Without even waiting the public outcry, the politicians and the other papers realised the game was up and set the wheels in motion.

This very analysis is the most powerful argument against regulating the press. Nowadays, with PR firms everywhere and managed communication, it is too often possible to wait out a news storm without taking too much damage. That was the tactic of News Corp, and they nearly got away with it. Only persevering, quality investigative journalism defeated them. And it is just that sort of journalism that would be threatened by excessive regulation.

This story is not unique in following this trajectory. Remember the MP expenses scandal. It had similar features, including an ugly coalition of insiders each tied up with each other’s interests. Then the Daily Telegraph breached the dam, in that case with some juicy exposures about duck houses and callous hypocrisy.
Watergate followed a similar path. So did Monica Lewinsky. Even Charles and Diana had elements of the same.

So did other examples, where in the end the PR industry won out. Remember cash for honours. The legality of the Iraq war. Prince Andrew’s activities. In those cases the tipping point never came, and the elite managed to park the issues in endless enquiries and out of the headlines. Berlusconi still survives as well - despite the best efforts of the Economist.

It is only with a courageous press that tipping points have a chance of being reached. And there are lessons here too for such journalists. The Guardian spent a long time focusing on the technical legality of News Corp, with little impact. It was the sensation that tipped the story over, the revelation which touched people’s consciences. That is another part of journalism – being able to spot the game-changing headline and to produce it. Often, the Guardian is not so good at that aspect of journalism, being somewhat removed from mainstream opinion. Ironically, one UK paper was the world’s best at that aspect. It was called the News of the World.

RIP News of the World and its honest journalists. But long may the schadenfreude continue over the crooks, and the establishment creeps who cosied up to them.