Rupert & Rebekah - now less popular than...

[Cormac]

What I find particularly nauseating about the whole thing, is that outrage only arose when people became aware of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone.

It was a crime when they did it to celebrities and politicians too. They too are entitled to the protection of the law. The fact that they are celebrities or politicians is of no bearing whatsoever.

The difference with the Milly Dowling phone is that the NOTW (Murdoch personally?) was deleting messages (to free up space and protect stories from other newspapers) within a few days of her going missing - at which point no one knew if she was dead. Not hard for most people to relate to the Parents clinging on to any hope that she was still alive (and was deleting the messages herself).

Took the Police 6 months to find her body - be interesting to know Murdochs movements during that time period.......

.....A rumour I heard was that the NOTW has security tape from an Elevator taken in a hotel at 4am showing Rupert having sex with Maddie - before putting her back into his suitcase......Murdoch has never denied it

That wasn't my point.

ALL of that tapping, hacking, and blagging was illegal. Many journalists, editors, coppers, and investigators (on the face of it), deserve jail sentences.

Why did it take such a depraved act, as the hacking of milly's phone, to arouse the public ire?

[Svartalf]

I notice that for some reason when politicos and celebs sue papers and media in France over violations of their privacy, they consistently get lower awards than ordinary persons get for similar offences and violations.
Despite our being a code based nation, that practice does not arise from any text. It arises from the fact that those categories thrive on publicity of whatever order, and actually often fail to protect their privacy, through public appearances with those close to them, or from feeding the media tidbits to keep the public interested. As such, they have already cheapened their rights to privacy, and so don't get the same awards as those whose privacy has really been violated.

I shall assume that similar rules exist in common law countries, so that public personalities might have a harder time demonstrationg in court that their privacy has been violated and that compensation is due for that. Maybe the very concept of 'celebrity' has been debased by media practices of the last 50 or so years, but until 'the people' completely stop feeding themselves to the gossip media, and sue over every word published that wasn't in the official press release, eventually leading to those media closing for not being able to work, judges will have to work with things as they are now, not as they should be, and as they are now is with many people making a living off a deprecated notion of what their private life is.

Did I see pictures of kate and harry in florida on CNN just a couple days ago?

[Santa_Claus]

That wasn't my point.

ALL of that tapping, hacking, and blagging was illegal. Many journalists, editors, coppers, and investigators (on the face of it), deserve jail sentences.

Why did it take such a depraved act, as the hacking of milly's phone, to arouse the public ire?

Maybe because giving a kidnapped childs family hope (that she is not dead) simply to make money seems somewhat un-British? I guess it's one of those things you either get (at a fundamental human level).....or you don't.

What next? dig Milly up for a photoshoot?

[Cormac]

I notice that for some reason when politicos and celebs sue papers and media in France over violations of their privacy, they consistently get lower awards than ordinary persons get for similar offences and violations.
Despite our being a code based nation, that practice does not arise from any text. It arises from the fact that those categories thrive on publicity of whatever order, and actually often fail to protect their privacy, through public appearances with those close to them, or from feeding the media tidbits to keep the public interested. As such, they have already cheapened their rights to privacy, and so don't get the same awards as those whose privacy has really been violated.

I shall assume that similar rules exist in common law countries, so that public personalities might have a harder time demonstrationg in court that their privacy has been violated and that compensation is due for that. Maybe the very concept of 'celebrity' has been debased by media practices of the last 50 or so years, but until 'the people' completely stop feeding themselves to the gossip media, and sue over every word published that wasn't in the official press release, eventually leading to those media closing for not being able to work, judges will have to work with things as they are now, not as they should be, and as they are now is with many people making a living off a deprecated notion of what their private life is.

Did I see pictures of kate and harry in florida on CNN just a couple days ago?

SOME "celebrities" do behave like that - for example, Jordan, and anyone who sold a "sex-scandal" story to the press.

Are you saying that ALL of the following no longer deserve any dignity or humane treatment:

1. The tabloid creature - whose entire career is based on tabloid appearances - for example, Jordan, or anyone who has ever sold a sex-scandal story - for example, Rebecca Loos.

2. An actor, who gives interviews as part of the promotion campaign for a film or TV show

3. A professional footballer

4. A TV personality

5. A Politician

6. A Comedian

Media, and especially tabloids get a lot more out of media coverage of all of the above than any of the "celebs". Without "celebs" the media would not sell anywhere near as much copy or as much advertising.

In my view, there is a vast difference between someone who uses the media to create a career through scandal (Paris Hilton, Jordan, Big Brother contestants, X-Factor entrants), and people like actors, athletes, politicians, comedians, etc. who simply pursue their career, with normal interaction with the media.

If a media outlet covers a statement by any of the above, they do so for their own purposes - sale of copies - and it isn't out of the goodness of their heart. Such people owe nothing to the media for this coverage.

Prurient intrusion into private lives is not excused by the lame attempt at justification that "these people are covered in the media".

It is like saying that just because a person is well known means that they are not entitld any privacy.

[Cormac]

That wasn't my point.

ALL of that tapping, hacking, and blagging was illegal. Many journalists, editors, coppers, and investigators (on the face of it), deserve jail sentences.

Why did it take such a depraved act, as the hacking of milly's phone, to arouse the public ire?

Maybe because giving a kidnapped childs family hope (that she is not dead) simply to make money seems somewhat un-British? I guess it's one of those things you either get (at a fundamental human level).....or you don't.

What next? dig Milly up for a photoshoot?

CLEARLY tapping Milly's phone was despicable, as was revealing that Brown's son has Cystic Fibrosis (even if it was by interview with a parent of a child with CF rather than illicit access of records).

But my argument is that far before the media had plumbed the depths of depravity by tapping Milly's phone, they were already rolling around in the mire of filth by tapping people like actors, comedians, politicians, etc.

This too is surely "un-British". Surely, a core part of being British is a sense that individual privacy is sacrosanct.

Apart from this, tapping is a crime in and of itself. The fact that these media outlets flouted the law should have been outrage enough.

[Svartalf]

You'll forgive me for not reading the tabloid/gossip press to make statistics about what types of 'personalities' get most coverage, and what kinds of coverage.
What I notice from the bits I catch and notice is that the personalities that get covered are quite apt to come from sports and politics, not just actors, media personality, and the 'famous for being famous' (category which is a lump all for anybody from rich nobodies like Paris H to the latest hot candidate in Survive to Be a Star), and honestly, politicians have no rights to privacy, I doubt miterrand would have been president a second time if he'd been less efficient at keeping a lid on what shenanigans he was up to, even though everybody who worked in the news sector was aware of them.

[Cormac]

You'll forgive me for not reading the tabloid/gossip press to make statistics about what types of 'personalities' get most coverage, and what kinds of coverage.
What I notice from the bits I catch and notice is that the personalities that get covered are quite apt to come from sports and politics, not just actors, media personality, and the 'famous for being famous' (category which is a lump all for anybody from rich nobodies like Paris H to the latest hot candidate in Survive to Be a Star), and honestly, politicians have no rights to privacy, I doubt miterrand would have been president a second time if he'd been less efficient at keeping a lid on what shenanigans he was up to, even though everybody who worked in the news sector was aware of them.

On what basis do you say politicians have no right to privacy?

Is this limitless? Is it fair for example, for the media to reveal all, or only some, of these potential "scoops":

1. A politician selling state secrets to foreign powers
2. A politician using his or her position to secure wealth for him or herself
3. A politician having an affair with a person who is a security risk (for example - the Profumo affair, where a politician with responsibility for defence was having an affair with the mistress of a Russian diplomat)
4. A married politician having an affair with a member of the opposite sex (but not doing anything to compromise their political role)
5. A married politician having an affair with a member of the same sex (but not doing anything to compromose their political role)
6. An unmarried politician having an affair with a member of the opposite sex (but not doing anything to compromise their political role)
7. An umnarried politician having an affair with a member of the same sex (but not doing anything to compromose their political role)
8. A politician who is suffering from an illness that doesn't compromise their political role
9. A politician who is suffering from an illness that might at some stage compromise their political role
10. A politician whose spouse is suffering from an illness
11. A politician whose child is suffering from a chronic illness
12. A politician whose child is suffering from a fatal illness.

For me the media have a duty to reveal 1-4, because these actually impact on areas of real public interest. None of the others are anyone's business, and the media step over the line when the do. The only possible exception is 9, but the timing of this is very important.

Politicians are human beings, and they don't sit in isolation - they have spouses and children. Revealing matters that aren't of "public interest" can have devastating effects on the lives of the politicians AND their spouses and families.

Human beings are frail creatures, prone to errors, mistakes, and imperfections. To expect that politicians are different to the rest of humanity is to put them on a pedestal that is just unwarranted. It is also very dangerous, because:

1. It inevitably drags politics into disrepute, by causing the public to erroneously conflate behaviour in private life and human error with the political process (which is damaging to democracy)
2. It causes people to put unwarranted trust in politicians who promise to clean up politics, which exposes the democratic process to the abuses of demagogues and would-be dictators.



Apart from all this, we set limits on how the police can use espionage to investigate crimes - and there are good reasons for this. Why do you think it is ok for the media to have completely unrestricted use of these techniques?

We restrict all sorts of agencies, government and private, in how they can gather, store, transport, and use personal data. We impose severe punishments for breaches. Why do you think it is ok for the media to be free of these restrictions that are imposed on everyone else?

[Cormac]

You'll forgive me for not reading the tabloid/gossip press to make statistics about what types of 'personalities' get most coverage, and what kinds of coverage.
What I notice from the bits I catch and notice is that the personalities that get covered are quite apt to come from sports and politics, not just actors, media personality, and the 'famous for being famous' (category which is a lump all for anybody from rich nobodies like Paris H to the latest hot candidate in Survive to Be a Star), and honestly, politicians have no rights to privacy, I doubt miterrand would have been president a second time if he'd been less efficient at keeping a lid on what shenanigans he was up to, even though everybody who worked in the news sector was aware of them.

As for Mitterrand, the existence of his mistress and their daughter was nobodies business. (Unless of course, her upkeep was paid for by corrupt payments from, for example, Elf Oil).

BUT, he did many things that should have been exposed, for example:

1. His involvement in the genocide in Rwanda
2. His ordering of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior (although this wasn't really a secret)
3. His widespread corrupt activities in relation to Elf Oil, and similar bribery from industry
3. His involvement in corrupt enrichment from government contracts
4. His illegal use of wiretaps
5. His approval of planting weapons on Irish people and having them charged with terrorism

This is the distinction between true "public interest", and simple prurient titilation.

Interestingly, after all the years of unusually hard nosed judicial investigation - on appeal, the typically corrupt French judicial system whitewashed the whole thing. Especially in the Dumas case.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is politically dangerous to have the media so focussed on saucy scandals. They are a distraction - a modern day opiate for the masses. When the Dumas appeal was successful, that should have drawn people onto the streets in violent protest. But it carries on today. We currently have a French EU Commissioner who was "pardoned" by the French President for graft (he took public money and siphoned it off to his political party), and this guy has since had responsibility for overseeing fraud for the EU! A pardon is not an exhoneration - he definitely was guilty.

Politics is far too serious to be hidden behind a screen of who is fucking whom.

[Svartalf]

Actually, given that the mistress was lodged at the taxpayer's expense, that it was presidential cars and official bodyguards that took the daughter to school and whatnot, yeah, it WAS our business.
If he had used only his personal fortune, and never mixed in his presidential positions and the perks it afforded in the matter, you might be correct. The moment a public cent was spent on them, it should have been a matter of public record.

As for the list of topics you listed in the previous post, I'll just state that we don't agree on all points, just for brevity. But ANYTHING that may affect the way an official performs his duties (including because he might get blackmailed or distracted) is a matter of public record.

[Cormac]

Actually, given that the mistress was lodged at the taxpayer's expense, that it was presidential cars and official bodyguards that took the daughter to school and whatnot, yeah, it WAS our business.
If he had used only his personal fortune, and never mixed in his presidential positions and the perks it afforded in the matter, you might be correct. The moment a public cent was spent on them, it should have been a matter of public record.

As for the list of topics you listed in the previous post, I'll just state that we don't agree on all points, just for brevity. But ANYTHING that may affect the way an official performs his duties (including because he might get blackmailed or distracted) is a matter of public record.

So, if his mistress was paid for by anything other than his own legitimate income - then it is of public interest, because it is without question corrupt use of power to have her paid for by anything else.

So, it would be right for the media to expose this.

If, on the other hand, she was paid for out of his legitimate income, it would not be of public interest, and therefore, should not be exposed in public.

The only possible explanations for publishing in the latter case can be:

1. A desire to make lots of money by selling more newspapers to the always prurient public and the incessant and unending desires of the mob.
2. A puritan need to police everyone's morality.

Given the behaviour of the average journalist that I know, I wonder which one implicates a journalist in deeper hypocrisy.

[Svartalf]

I'm not even speaking "legitimate income", I speak, "personal fortune", meaning, something he made on his own, without assistance from public position, and certainly not paid out of civil list or other elective indemnities.

As for a puritan desire to police morality, I don't have that, but given the degree of corruption among politicos, I'm quite willing to be somewhat too severe with them, until they are generally virtuous enough that certain foibles can be glossed over as truly private and unrelated to their public personality.

[Cormac]

Actually, given that the mistress was lodged at the taxpayer's expense, that it was presidential cars and official bodyguards that took the daughter to school and whatnot, yeah, it WAS our business.
If he had used only his personal fortune, and never mixed in his presidential positions and the perks it afforded in the matter, you might be correct. The moment a public cent was spent on them, it should have been a matter of public record.

As for the list of topics you listed in the previous post, I'll just state that we don't agree on all points, just for brevity. But ANYTHING that may affect the way an official performs his duties (including because he might get blackmailed or distracted) is a matter of public record.

... my whole point is that it is only in the public interest where public money is abused, or public power is abused. Or, for example, where a public figure is instructing the public about how to behave, when their private lives are in breach of that. (So - Eamonn Casey - the Irish Bishop who publicly promoted Catholic sexual morality, while having a hidden and secret family - this was fair publication).

In the vast majority of cases though, while the victims of journalistic greed might be public figures, they have not stepped over this line. They might be having affairs, or taking cocaine, or using prostitutes, or be secretly homosexual, or an alcoholic, ill, or have committed any number of indiscretions. They are still entitled to their privacy, the same as anyone else.

(If their indiscretion is a crime in a given jurisdiction, and they are prosecuted, then they will be subject to the same jurisdiction as any member of the public. Justice, after all, (at least in democracies), is usually delivered in public. Once in court, the media may freely report.

[Cormac]

I'm not even speaking "legitimate income", I speak, "personal fortune", meaning, something he made on his own, without assistance from public position, and certainly not paid out of civil list or other elective indemnities.

As for a puritan desire to police morality, I don't have that, but given the degree of corruption among politicos, I'm quite willing to be somewhat too severe with them, until they are generally virtuous enough that certain foibles can be glossed over as truly private and unrelated to their public personality.

Money is either earned legitimately or it is not.

If it is not, then that person should not just face media exposure, but also prosecution and jail terms.

If it is legitimately earned, then it is really noone elses business how it is spent, so long as it is spent within the boundaries of the law within a given country. (And if it is spent illegally - such as on prostitutes or cocaine, then it is only of interest to the police until such time as it begins to impact upon performance of public duties).

So much for politicians.

What about actors and the like?

[Audley Strange]

Is this limitless? Is it fair for example, for the media to reveal all, or only some, of these potential "scoops":

1. A politician selling state secrets to foreign powers
2. A politician using his or her position to secure wealth for him or herself
3. A politician having an affair with a person who is a security risk (for example - the Profumo affair, where a politician with responsibility for defence was having an affair with the mistress of a Russian diplomat)
4. A married politician having an affair with a member of the opposite sex (but not doing anything to compromise their political role)
5. A married politician having an affair with a member of the same sex (but not doing anything to compromose their political role)
6. An unmarried politician having an affair with a member of the opposite sex (but not doing anything to compromise their political role)
7. An umnarried politician having an affair with a member of the same sex (but not doing anything to compromose their political role)
8. A politician who is suffering from an illness that doesn't compromise their political role
9. A politician who is suffering from an illness that might at some stage compromise their political role
10. A politician whose spouse is suffering from an illness
11. A politician whose child is suffering from a chronic illness
12. A politician whose child is suffering from a fatal illness.

For me the media have a duty to reveal 1-4, because these actually impact on areas of real public interest. None of the others are anyone's business, and the media step over the line when the do. The only possible exception is 9, but the timing of this is very important.

Politicians are human beings, and they don't sit in isolation - they have spouses and children. Revealing matters that aren't of "public interest" can have devastating effects on the lives of the politicians AND their spouses and families.

Human beings are frail creatures, prone to errors, mistakes, and imperfections. To expect that politicians are different to the rest of humanity is to put them on a pedestal that is just unwarranted. It is also very dangerous, because:

1. It inevitably drags politics into disrepute, by causing the public to erroneously conflate behaviour in private life and human error with the political process (which is damaging to democracy)
2. It causes people to put unwarranted trust in politicians who promise to clean up politics, which exposes the democratic process to the abuses of demagogues and would-be dictators.



Apart from all this, we set limits on how the police can use espionage to investigate crimes - and there are good reasons for this. Why do you think it is ok for the media to have completely unrestricted use of these techniques?

We restrict all sorts of agencies, government and private, in how they can gather, store, transport, and use personal data. We impose severe punishments for breaches. Why do you think it is ok for the media to be free of these restrictions that are imposed on everyone else?

Why do you say that 4 is fair game but not the rest exactly?

[Svartalf]

What about actors and the like?

They make a life out of being famous, since the more known they are, the more contracts and the bigger pay they get... Those who make a clear distinction about their private lives, like never talking about it in interviews or inviting the press in their homes, are entitled to it. Those who even start trying to boost their fame by mixing "private" life and gossip into it become fair game, plain and simple. (short of collecting data through criminal deeds of course)