IN the end, there was nothing else David Cameron could do.
In the face of allegations involving the man who used to work for him, the woman who’s married to a friend of his, and the man who was the first to visit him in Number 10 after the election last year, the Prime Minister might have been tempted to continue resisting calls for an investigation into the behaviour of the News of the World for fear that this proximity, this interconnectedness, might allow the poison bubbling in News International to seep into Number 10 itself.
However, the latest allegations that private investigators working for the news organisation may have hacked into the phones of Milly Dowler and the father of Soham victim Jessica Chapman are so repulsive, so repugnant to ordinary people, to voters, that finally Mr Cameron had no choice but to accede to the clamours and order an inquiry. It is right that he has done so.
Mr Cameron was also right to insist the inquiry cannot happen while the criminal investigation is ongoing but what he must ensure is that, unlike the farce of the News International investigation being headed by its chief executive Rebekah Brooks, this new inquiry must be fully independent of the Government. The pressure on Mrs Brooks to resign has intensified with the allegation that she had ordered an investigator to hack into a mobile on her behalf while editor of the News of the World. Labour leader Ed Miliband drew attention to the Murdoch web yesterday when he questioned Mr Cameron’s judgment in employing Andy Coulson and he was right to do so. Mr Cameron made a mistake first in appointing Coulson and then in standing by him until he became the story and had to resign.
There is still delicate territory for Mr Cameron to negotiate, however. He is no different from Tony Blair in cosying up to Rupert Murdoch and, for any politician concerned about their treatment by the media, this relationship is understandable, if distasteful. If the snake can bite, charm the snake.
But the huge media power that causes this reaction is also the problem for the Government. For months now, News Corporation, owner of News International, has been pushing for full ownership of BSkyB and the Government says it is minded to let a takeover happen. But the illusion that the hacking and the takeover are separate issues has been exposed as just that. If this takeover goes ahead, the man who owns the paper at the centre of this scandal would own Britain’s biggest broadcaster. Ofcom has to ensure the owner of a broadcaster such as BSkyB is fit and proper. Can it be so, in light of the shocking relevations? Any takeover should be put on hold until we have the resolution of any criminal investigation and an inquiry has reported.
Is self-regulation the correct model for newspapers? The Milly Dowler allegations were the tipping point for ordinary people (and for the growing number of businesses withdrawing advertising from the News of the World) who might have been willing to dismiss the hacking of celebrities’ mobiles as of limited importance. Now, there seems to be a mood for change, not least among MPs who perhaps want revenge after the expenses scandal.
The industry’s regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission, says it was lied to by News International but did it conduct its inquiries with sufficient rigour? The Metropolitan Police stands in the dock for conducting an investigation into the hacking that was far from convincing. But we must be cautious in the face of calls for privacy laws. The danger in those is that we end up with a system like the one that exists in France, where legitimate journalistic enterprise in the public interest can be stifled to protect a reputation. Our political class has a role to play by keeping a distance from overweening proprietors.
At the end of it all, what is important is that we emerge with a media that does not and cannot behave as the News of the World has. But it is vitally important that we have a media free to do its job and hold authority to account in its many guises -- a media that is regulated but not smothered or silenced. First, Wapping’s Augean stables must be cleaned out.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article