posts about or somewhat related to ‘news of the world’

No, I’m not, frankly. It doesn’t do the newspaper industry any good; it doesn’t do the credibility of journalism any good.

New York Daily News publisher MORT ZUCKERMAN, when asked on CNBC if he’s reacting to competitor Rupert Murdoch shutting down the News Of The World.

From a business POV, Zuckerman added that the newspaper industry in the U.S. was “challenged” in terms of profitability, and added that the term “newspaper business” was an “oxymoron.”

(CNBC via MediaBistro)

(Source: inothernews)

Amid Scandal, News Corp Shutters News of the World →

James Murdoch, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, News Corporation, and Chairman, News International in an announcement to staff today.

Via Adweek:

You do not need to be told that The News of the World is 168 years old. That it is read by more people than any other English language newspaper. That it has enjoyed support from Britain’s largest advertisers. And that it has a proud history of fighting crime, exposing wrong-doing and regularly setting the news agenda for the nation…

The good things the News of the World does, however, have been sullied by behaviour that was wrong. Indeed, if recent allegations are true, it was inhuman and has no place in our Company.

The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself…

Having consulted senior colleagues, I have decided that we must take further decisive action with respect to the paper.

This Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World.

A furor has been building in England for months after disclosures that journalists from The News of the World, a mass-circulation Sunday tabloid, hacked into the voice-mail messages of celebrities and other prominent people. But, this week, the extent of the alleged hacking has broadened dramatically with reports that the newspaper hacked the cellphone of a 13-year-old girl who was abducted and murdered in 2002, when Ms. Brooks was its editor.

Additionally, Scotland Yard detectives were also investigating whether the phones of some families of victims of the bombings of three London subway trains and a double-decker bus in July 2005 had also been hacked, according to relatives of the dead.

“We are no longer talking here about politicians and celebrities, we are talking about murder victims, potentially terrorist victims, having their phones hacked into,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament. “It is absolutely disgusting, what has taken place, and I think everyone in this House and indeed this country will be revolted by what they have heard and what they have seen on their television screens.”

The New York Times, “Hacking Scandal Draws In British Government.”

This story gets more and more sickening.

(via inothernews) Stay classy, Murdoch

Ethics 101 teaches journalists a few things about what they should and shouldn’t do. Somewhere near the top is that you can’t hack into people’s phones to poach their voicemails. It’s not just unethical, but illegal too.
Evidently, Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World never got the message.
Yesterday, a third journalist from England’s largest paper was arrested “on suspicion of unlawfully intercepting mobile phone voice mail messages.”
The story begins back in 2005 when, according to a September 2010 New York Times Magazine cover story:

[T]hree senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.

As the Times Magazine told it, phone hacking was part of News of the World’s get the story at any cost culture with editors looking on at the practice with a nod and a wink.
The ethics are easy on this: tabloid gossip aside, you don’t invade celebrity privacy to generate scandal.
But what if you’ve larger fish to fry? Listen to what The Guardian’s Ian Reeves wrote in 2006:

I’ve used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I, too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail…
…But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets. That is my defence, when I try to explain newspaper methods to my current university journalism students, and some of whom are rather shocked.

Are these techniques legitimate then if an intrepid journalist is trying to uncover malfeasance and corruption? Or does it give journalists authoritative powers never intended for them?
Over at the BBC, media critic Torin Douglas sympathizes with bending the law if it’s in the public interest but notes that English law doesn’t. “There is no public interest defense,” a lawyer tells him.
Besides, journalists aren’t an infallible bunch. Some have been known to get the story wrong in quite dramatic ways.

Ethics 101 teaches journalists a few things about what they should and shouldn’t do. Somewhere near the top is that you can’t hack into people’s phones to poach their voicemails. It’s not just unethical, but illegal too.

Evidently, Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World never got the message.

Yesterday, a third journalist from England’s largest paper was arrested “on suspicion of unlawfully intercepting mobile phone voice mail messages.”

The story begins back in 2005 when, according to a September 2010 New York Times Magazine cover story:

[T]hree senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.

As the Times Magazine told it, phone hacking was part of News of the World’s get the story at any cost culture with editors looking on at the practice with a nod and a wink.

The ethics are easy on this: tabloid gossip aside, you don’t invade celebrity privacy to generate scandal.

But what if you’ve larger fish to fry? Listen to what The Guardian’s Ian Reeves wrote in 2006:

I’ve used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I, too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail…

…But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets. That is my defence, when I try to explain newspaper methods to my current university journalism students, and some of whom are rather shocked.

Are these techniques legitimate then if an intrepid journalist is trying to uncover malfeasance and corruption? Or does it give journalists authoritative powers never intended for them?

Over at the BBC, media critic Torin Douglas sympathizes with bending the law if it’s in the public interest but notes that English law doesn’t. “There is no public interest defense,” a lawyer tells him.

Besides, journalists aren’t an infallible bunch. Some have been known to get the story wrong in quite dramatic ways.