So, as of this weekend, Britain's best-selling Sunday newspaper[*] will cease publication.
Cause for celebration? I'm not really sure it is, to be honest.
It's possible that someone, somewhere, who understands more about business than me, genuinely thinks that the NotW is damaged beyond repair. They may even be right. The Hillsborough scandal didn't do for the Sun (though allegedly their circulation is still poor in Liverpool), after all. Although admittedly in the '80s you had to put in real effort to show your displeasure instead of just sitting around on Twitter.
However, to me it sounds more like damage limitation. The Murdoch Empire, which is completely innocent of the whole affair, is seen to be Doing Something, and we can now be certain that all those nasty voicemail-intercepting reporters have been taught a lesson. OK?
Possibly, if the Murdochs had an unblemished reputation and a famous devotion to the truth, I'd even believe they were genuinely shocked by the whole thing. Maybe I'm being unfair, and they are. But the NotW's practices somehow seem so indicative of the Murdoch way of doing things that it's difficult to believe the organisation wasn't taking its tone from the top.
I had thought that, a few years back, there had been accusations of phone-hackery levelled at other papers. If there are, however, my google-fu isn't equal to locating them. But I find it difficult to believe - if it was so rife at the News of the World - that other papers seeking sensational stories weren't doing the same. If by closing down the Sunday Scapegoat we can draw a neat line and leave other papers to get on with the job of ferreting out secrets by fair means or foul, then we are no further forward. And when News International grinds into action and produces a whole "new" Sunday paper to fill the gap, everything can continue undisturbed.
I wonder if journalists are about to become the new bankers, openly reviled by just about everyone. Everyone knows what journalists look like, haggard hacks with a foot in the door and a long lens hovering behind. I actually found this image genuinely confusing when I was a kid, unable to reconcile it with the mother and her red biro patiently correcting the spelling of Charollais in the weekly sheep sales report for a provincial weekly.
Now, I'm fairly sure (despite having never read it) that the NotW doesn't cover the local livestock marts in any great detail, but even a screaming red-top doesn't have a staff entirely of paps and hackers. I can't guess at how many of the people writing the sensationalist headlines knew what was going on with the voicemails of the famous or unfortunate, but I imagine there are departments at NotW who were carefully putting together this week's Fabulous magazine or writing film reviews who were wholly uninvolved and unaware. All these people are now going to lose their jobs - not to mention becoming the new hate figures everywhere they go - and that's not a cause for celebration.
ETA: And while I was writing this, news has started leaking out that the closure was announced to the press before the NotW staff. That is a shabby way to treat anyone, and does not incline me in any way to think better of News International.
[*] Yeah, surprised me too.
Cause for celebration? I'm not really sure it is, to be honest.
It's possible that someone, somewhere, who understands more about business than me, genuinely thinks that the NotW is damaged beyond repair. They may even be right. The Hillsborough scandal didn't do for the Sun (though allegedly their circulation is still poor in Liverpool), after all. Although admittedly in the '80s you had to put in real effort to show your displeasure instead of just sitting around on Twitter.
However, to me it sounds more like damage limitation. The Murdoch Empire, which is completely innocent of the whole affair, is seen to be Doing Something, and we can now be certain that all those nasty voicemail-intercepting reporters have been taught a lesson. OK?
Possibly, if the Murdochs had an unblemished reputation and a famous devotion to the truth, I'd even believe they were genuinely shocked by the whole thing. Maybe I'm being unfair, and they are. But the NotW's practices somehow seem so indicative of the Murdoch way of doing things that it's difficult to believe the organisation wasn't taking its tone from the top.
I had thought that, a few years back, there had been accusations of phone-hackery levelled at other papers. If there are, however, my google-fu isn't equal to locating them. But I find it difficult to believe - if it was so rife at the News of the World - that other papers seeking sensational stories weren't doing the same. If by closing down the Sunday Scapegoat we can draw a neat line and leave other papers to get on with the job of ferreting out secrets by fair means or foul, then we are no further forward. And when News International grinds into action and produces a whole "new" Sunday paper to fill the gap, everything can continue undisturbed.
I wonder if journalists are about to become the new bankers, openly reviled by just about everyone. Everyone knows what journalists look like, haggard hacks with a foot in the door and a long lens hovering behind. I actually found this image genuinely confusing when I was a kid, unable to reconcile it with the mother and her red biro patiently correcting the spelling of Charollais in the weekly sheep sales report for a provincial weekly.
Now, I'm fairly sure (despite having never read it) that the NotW doesn't cover the local livestock marts in any great detail, but even a screaming red-top doesn't have a staff entirely of paps and hackers. I can't guess at how many of the people writing the sensationalist headlines knew what was going on with the voicemails of the famous or unfortunate, but I imagine there are departments at NotW who were carefully putting together this week's Fabulous magazine or writing film reviews who were wholly uninvolved and unaware. All these people are now going to lose their jobs - not to mention becoming the new hate figures everywhere they go - and that's not a cause for celebration.
ETA: And while I was writing this, news has started leaking out that the closure was announced to the press before the NotW staff. That is a shabby way to treat anyone, and does not incline me in any way to think better of News International.
[*] Yeah, surprised me too.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 04:57 pm (UTC)And there was me thinking I was being insightful. I'm so behind. Apparently thesunonsunday.co.uk was registered two days ago.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 05:15 pm (UTC)I do think that the forced removal of the brand does have some impact though. It may be mainly damage restriction from (Not)News Int but the fact they were forced to do it is still damage and from a financial point of view still a loss.
They are probably hoping it will work as a nice neat line under it all but there is still a promised (okay toothless, quiet) investigation and a significantly raised awareness of techniques that can be used by anybody - journalist or not - to invade personal privacy.
And they may have handled the news to the staff badly and not be known as a particularly nice corporation but I'd imagine many will get jobs on the Sunday Sun. Except hopefully the PIs hired to do the hacking and those who authorised the paying of them to do it.
[1]So is generalisation
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 05:38 pm (UTC)Indeed, it may backfire, because the message I take home from this is that James Murdoch had no problem with phone tapping of celebrities or heads would have rolled sooner.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 05:39 pm (UTC)Re the Press being told of NoW closure before the staff, that doesn't surprise me one bit, given the state of HR in the industry atm.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 06:32 pm (UTC)I am probably just being more optimistic about New Corp's response to the redundancies and the suitability of internal vacancies that can be applied for.
I hope the knee jerk reaction to save the BSkyB bid doesn't look as bad for the employees once a bit of time has passed.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 08:54 pm (UTC)(And I agree with your overall point; this is arse-covering intended to try and get through the rough patch without actually making any changes. I hope it fails.)
no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-07 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 06:04 am (UTC)http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2152
(in short, they accuse Murdoch of attempting to just make the whole scandal disappear by scapegoating junior staff whilst simultaneously removing an anti-trust objection to the BskyB deal).
no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 06:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 06:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 08:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 08:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 08:47 am (UTC)[*] Why yes, I do mean "on Wikipedia".
no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 08:49 am (UTC)How could they be unaware? It's been public knowledge for several years, since the Goodman/Mulcaire trial over Prince William's phone.
I have extremely limited sympathy for them. They may not have hacked themselves, but they were perfectly happy to have their wages paid by the known proceeds of hacking. Plus which, phone hacking is only the most extreme of the NotW's iniquities: it has a long history of grotesquely immoral journalistic practice.
If you choose to work for an evil scumrag, you have to take the rough with the smooth, I think.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 09:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 09:30 am (UTC)However, while I don't think I'd want to work for the NotW I don't think I'd be that quick to judge people who took a job where they could get it. And to be honest, I don't think I'd see those employees not directly involved as hugely more culpable than the millions of people who handed over cash every week to read the known results of hacking.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 09:32 am (UTC)I think the ToI figures are also pretty dubious, but it certainly was coming up fast on the NotW, whether or not it had actually overtaken it. The trouble is that 'circulation' has many definitions, and it's hard to compare like with like across different countries.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 09:47 am (UTC)But I don't think many NotW journalistic staff were in the position of accepting a job there out of desperate lack of alternatives. It was the top payer in the industry, and could pick and choose journalists as it pleased, headhunting star performers from other titles.
Although I probably am too quick to judge generally, in this case I think a bit of judgement is justified. Journalists who take high-paying jobs on evil tabloids in the pious hope that somehow it won't rub off on them shouldn't moan when the payoff eventually catches up. Moral compromise is often necessary, but there are lines beyond which one shouldn't go if one wishes to avoid culpability.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 11:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-07-08 10:22 pm (UTC)I think there's also the point some people (myself included) dislike tabloids like the NOTW for reasons more than the illegal phone hacking. I mean, when they run stories like this, I have the world's smallest violin for any NOTW employee now finding out that freebie Britain isn't so great after all. I know, not everyone involved wrote those stories - but they knowingly supported a paper that spread those stories.
(I first wrote that last sentence in the present tense, then realised, then rewrote in the past tense. Oh, what a good feeling that was!)
Sometimes people don't have a choice when it comes to jobs - but couldn't that same argument apply even to the journalists who do write the bad stories?
Re: your later comment about the buyers being responsible - yes, they are - but consider the people who buy the paper for the sport, reviews, etc...
I do agree though that The Sun or whatever will just take its place, and carry on much the same.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-11 03:01 pm (UTC)The NotW was always dodgy, long before Murdoch bought it. It's the paper that pays the most for exclusives, the paper that used to bribe police and pay serial killers for their stories. Apparently still does at least one of them.
So I think that closing it is a statement by Murdoch that he no longer wants to run a paper that is outright *supposed* to be dodgy. It's a branding decision - no doubt the Sun will do some dodgy stuff, just as a lot of papers do, but it isn't marketed as the paper full of shady hacks.