Jump to content
aberdeen-music

NOTW Hacks...


Recommended Posts

No thoughts here on the NOTW stories?

My most amused moment is this blog on the telegraph:

What is the BBC really trying to do with its Milly Dowler coverage? – Telegraph Blogs

It accuses the BBC of making too big a deal of the hacking, whereas his own paper has liebv updates on the hacking scandal... News of the World phone hacking: live - Telegraph

I think its surprising people are shocked by this, tabloid journalists, specifically Murdoch's rags are notorious for their underhanded tactics. Anything for a story right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fucking horrible. Imagine having a tiny bit of hope that your daughter is alive, because there's activity on her phone, only for it to be snatched away. All just to get a story out and maybe a few more 30p papers sold. Horrendous.

That's the bit i find strange, surely in an age where the police can trace phone calls etc they must have known that he deletes etc were not coming from Milly's phone but from someone else and who/where that someone else was, so the question is now, why are we only hearing about this now unless theres something seriously wrong with the policing system as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gladstone
That's the bit i find strange, surely in an age where the police can trace phone calls etc they must have known that he deletes etc were not coming from Milly's phone but from someone else and who/where that someone else was, so the question is now, why are we only hearing about this now unless theres something seriously wrong with the policing system as well.

From what I gather, the NOTW have (or maybe "had") been paying the police for stories and there could be a bit of a cover up going on here. ALLEGEDLY.

Well, "allegedly" insofar as the cover up goes - I heard this morning that they've handed over emails to the investigation which contains evidence of payments being made to police officers for stories back in 2003 I think it was.

I'm not surprised by any of this. I stopped reading newspapers a long time ago because they're full of shit, uninteresting stories either made up or written using facts gathered by at best "questionable" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gather, the NOTW have (or maybe "had") been paying the police for stories and there could be a bit of a cover up going on here. ALLEGEDLY.

Well, "allegedly" insofar as the cover up goes - I heard this morning that they've handed over emails to the investigation which contains evidence of payments being made to police officers for stories back in 2003 I think it was.

I'm not surprised by any of this. I stopped reading newspapers a long time ago because they're full of shit, uninteresting stories either made up or written using facts gathered by at best "questionable" means.

I can only assume they were complciit, afetr all you'd think anyone who hacks into a phone and tampers with evidence in a mirder investigation would have to be at the very least a suspect in such a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gladstone
I couldn't believe it when i heard it but sadly i wasn't surprised, just shocked. Makes you wonder how often this goes on in the real world and it's never known about other than by those who authorise it.

I think you'll find that that is an oxymoron, my friend...

nothing_in_stone.jpg

:up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing Twittering your distaste at Murdoch, NI, NOTW et al and bombarding companies with emails telling them to withdraw their advertising. It's quite another to feel so indignant about them that you actually do something that will affect your own life directly, such as cancelling your Sky subscription or refusing to use the products of NI employees and columnists. My guess is that the number of people who actually care about this that much is very small, and that the media furore is nothing more than a good way to make "silly season" more bearable for those behind the newsdesks.

Sure, what the NOTW reporter did was morally wrong, and probably illegal. Can anyone show me a news organisation or paper that hasn't transgressed in such a way? Is the Guardian whiter-than-white? The Mirror? The Telegraph? The BBC? This story's going to spread, and it won't just be NI that's implicated in it by the end.

You're probably right, there's not much proper action people will take. It's sad. This situation is pretty sickening but because it's being reported through the very channels that are implicated, there's fewer ways to vent about about and get something done. What would you suggest folks do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently this hacking is the method ofexploiting the fact that most phone owners never change there default number for voicemail. This of course would have been used as a way of getting possible stories by the majority of newspapers. There's a really weak excuse going around that the journalists etc feel pressured into using these methods because of added competition from yes you guessed it : The interweb....

Pricks!

Our press has been twisted for years.I may be wrong but i heard this is down to the fact that the papers here do not have to name sources. In the US do they not have to name people when using quotes or witness accounts. Here they just say "a close friend" or "an ex colleague"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the Guardian that has been pushing this story for years - it's good to see Tom Watson MP on his way to being vindicated, for example - so let's not turn it into a 'which newspaper is least bad' debate, as it greatly undermines what's going on. If all true, police were paid off by the NOTW, the Government was lied to, Rupert Murdoch is publicly backing a woman who was probably at least aware of the fact that people on her payroll - whether full time staff or not - were tampering with the mobile phones and lives of murder and terrorism victims and their families. Not only that, but our very own Prime Minister has publicly backed the man who was deputy editor at the time.

AND yep, I have cancelled Sky Sports as of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the Guardian that has been pushing this story for years - it's good to see Tom Watson MP on his way to being vindicated, for example - so let's not turn it into a 'which newspaper is least bad' debate, as it greatly undermines what's going on. If all true, police were paid off by the NOTW, the Government was lied to, Rupert Murdoch is publicly backing a woman who was probably at least aware of the fact that people on her payroll - whether full time staff or not - were tampering with the mobile phones and lives of murder and terrorism victims and their families. Not only that, but our very own Prime Minister has publicly backed the man who was deputy editor at the time.

AND yep, I have cancelled Sky Sports as of today.

andy coulson was editor while paying off police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Guardian covered (or attempted to cover) for someone who was leaking them information about the defence of the realm from within government. Surely that's more serious than the NOTW printing a story using facts obtained by a private investigator whose means of obtaining facts was somewhat unorthodox.

Mind you, what do you expect from a newspaper that employed Richard Gott, Kia Abdullah and Polly Toynbee? No Twitter storm for their outrageous actions and pronouncements in the past. Imagine if they'd worked for Murdoch?

while it's an interesting defence of the notw to bring up a single incident from 23 years ago it really isn't relevant to the current discussion about phone hacking. i'm not even sure why you're skirting round the illegality of the notw scandal by saying they're "somewhat unorthodox". It's a bit more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was meaning when I asked if these other media organisations were whiter than white is that none of them have an unimpeachable record of journalistic propriety, and that if any of them try to claim the moral high ground in this affair then they're hypocrites. The NOTW's actions of some years ago are no better or worse than those of their rivals. The hysteria over this case is fuelled by the fact that it's Murdoch's papers at fault, not by the allegations themselves. If this happened at any other newspaper (and it has, believe me, we're going to find out who else has been furtively typing 0000 as the weeks progress) then the outcry would not be nearly this shrill.

oh totally, there's no doubting it's an industry wide problem and that even journalists at left-leaning liberal papers will have used the same technique. I think the problem with the notw is that it's so ingrained with the government(Rebekah brooks is a close friend of camerons as well as coulson being a former employee) and affects another big story - murdochs buy out of bskyb. They've also consistently lied about it in court, to the PCC and to parliament. Frankly, it's taking the piss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this happened at any other newspaper ... then the outcry would not be nearly this shrill.

Probably true, but that doesn't mean it's unjustified though. The reason for the 'outcry imbalance' is down to News International's overall reputation and past behaviour, you can't blame the public for that. When a judge passes sentence, previous offences are taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to stop using the products and services of all companies implicated in the phone hacking situation? It seems a very grandiose gesture given that this isn't even close to being the pinnacle of journalistic villainy. Have you boycotted anyone and everything to do with Piers Morgan and Mirror Group Newspapers since 2004, for example?

Quite funny that you draw a distinction between people getting angry about this on Twitter, and taking action that affects their day-to-day lives, only to then call someone doing just that guilty of making a 'very grandiose gesture'. The only reason I brought it up was to pre-empt any armchair politics accusations (not that cancelling a Sky subscription is akin to jumping under a horse). Of course it's difficult to stop using the products and services of all companies implicated in the phone hacking situation, but starting at cutting off direct payments to company at the heart of (at least until other newspapers and companies are implicated) the matter is a start. I don't quite understand your 'all or nothing' approach to any of this. Most people can't do 'all' but most people want to do 'something'. Even if that's only as far as retweeting something, then great. It's still a demonstration of interest, anger, etc.

I was sixteen/seventeen in 2004, and didn't pay attention to things such as these nearly so much as I do now. I'm afraid I'm not into retrospective boycotts (I'm not angry about my Mum owning a Volkswagen, for example).

As for there not being as much of a fuss made had it been another newspaper, I disagree completely - if anything, I think people would be more shocked and appalled, and taken up social networking arms, had the Guardian, for example, been tapping into the phones of murder, war and terrorism victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just dont agree that other companies wouldnt dace similar scrutiny, 3 people lost their job over the Andrew Sachs phonecall at the BBC and there was far less of a public outrage than this. Any company that is involved in the media will be automatically pounced on by the others, that's howe it works, the reason that therest of the media goes head to head with Murdoch so much is that Murdoch will use any opportunity to take them down, Murdoch, apart from the Daily Mail, is the worst for trying to take down individuals etc that it doesnt agree with. Think back to the campaign to get rid of Sharon Shoesmith after the Baby P thing was pretty much led by the Sun/NOTW and their arguement was that she was the boss and if such infringements happened under her watch she should be held responsible, strange they advocate that so strongly and yet Reebekah Brooks doesnt seem to actually be held to that scrutiny or accountability. They are hypocrites of the highest order and Brooks should go and NI should be stopped from buying Sky until they can prove that they are responsible enough to own it and run it according to the law unlike the rest of their business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...