I think the reaction to the Andy Coulson scandal shows it is. It was only two days after last week's article was published in the New York Times containing the new information that the British media started to pick up on it. The Murdoch papers have put on an almost blackout of the story, with the Sun not reporting it all and even the Times pushing a small article on the story to about page 15 today, despite the fact it was by far the top story yesterday. Even the Mirror, which NEVER turns down an opportunity to put pressure on the Coalition, is almost ignoring it - which, for me, is a tell-tale sign it's a lot more widespread than they're admitting.

The story has also had very little coverage on the Sky News website. On the day it was leading the BBC news, there was no mention of it all on the Sky website. No surprise there. However much truth there is in the story, that total lack of coverage shows how dangerous the concentration of media ownership can be.

Anyone that cares about the subject will already know about it though, just because some of the papers cover it up you would have to live on the moon not to know about this case so the truth is out there still

I think the Mirror's silence is most curious of all - aside from their hatred of the Coalition, when have they EVER missed an opportunity to slam their arch rival?

Anyone that cares about the subject will already know about it though, just because some of the papers cover it up you would have to live on the moon not to know about this case so the truth is out there still

 

Yes, but my point is the papers are basically conspiring to give the story as little oxygen as possible in the hope it dies down quickly. Like Shoat said, this story should've been the biggest present of all-time for the Mirror as it gives them a chance to punish both their rival paper and the government, and yet they're giving it a wide berth. The original New York Times story said they spoke to a dozen journalists who said it was widespread in the tabloid industry, but only one was willing to put his name on the record. The article also said sources indicated Scotland Yard turned a blind eye to further investigations because they didn't want to upset their good relations with Murdoch's News International.

 

Even though Grimly Fiendish would usually be this forum's in-house conspiracy-theorist :P , I can't help but feel there's a massive cover-up going on here.

It's going to be interesting to see whether they can get away with it. Even though certain organisations are doing their best to bury the story, there are still some outlets willing to investigate and talk about it, so it's probably not going to go away entirely. If there are any further developments or fresh evidence, I can't see the BBC for one just dropping it in the same fashion as the tabloids.

 

This will be an interesting test on the "power" of the media, particularly the mighty Murdoch press.

An ex-journalist said on TV yesterday " When I was a journalist I'd have tapped my own phone if it meant a good juicy story" Can't remember who it was now.

Yes, but my point is the papers are basically conspiring to give the story as little oxygen as possible in the hope it dies down quickly. Like Shoat said, this story should've been the biggest present of all-time for the Mirror as it gives them a chance to punish both their rival paper and the government, and yet they're giving it a wide berth. The original New York Times story said they spoke to a dozen journalists who said it was widespread in the tabloid industry, but only one was willing to put his name on the record. The article also said sources indicated Scotland Yard turned a blind eye to further investigations because they didn't want to upset their good relations with Murdoch's News International.

 

Even though Grimly Fiendish would usually be this forum's in-house conspiracy-theorist :P , I can't help but feel there's a massive cover-up going on here.

 

It's not a "conspiracy theory" if it's actually true..... :P :lol:

 

Scotland Yard not pursuing this is really pretty incredible tbh... I mean, look how the Filth went after Damien Green, an elected MP, what, and they just leave Murdoch alone??? WTF???? Stinks like a week old kipper left in the sun mate.....

that total lack of coverage shows how dangerous the concentration of media ownership can be.

 

Amen.....

 

A former editor has told the Guardian that pretty much all the reporters at News of the World frequently hacked into phones, and that it's "inconceivable" that Coulson wouldn't've known about it.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/0...e-world-witness

 

Predictably, the rest of the press is giving this development minimal coverage.

Also, the Independent reports that Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who was jailed for hacking into Prince Harry's phone in 2007 (which NoTW insisted was a one-off case), was planning to write a book documenting the many times he had been asked by the paper to hack into phones, before signing a confidentiality agreement with the Murdoch empire to the tune of £80,000.

This doesn't shock me at all. What DOES is that McMullan is brave / stupid enough to DEFEND it.

 

I can't deny that his argument that the "wrongdoers" are asking for it holds some stock; but he is assuming that all those who were hacked were "wrongdoers", which almost certainly isn't the case.

This doesn't shock me at all. What DOES is that McMullan is brave / stupid enough to DEFEND it.

 

I can't deny that his argument that the "wrongdoers" are asking for it holds some stock; but he is assuming that all those who were hacked were "wrongdoers", which almost certainly isn't the case.

 

Yeah, I was quite stunned when I read his defense of it. How could someone not realise hacking into phones is illegal? :blink:

 

Atleast it looks like some journalists are finally breaking the conspiracy of silence though

Yeah, I was quite stunned when I read his defense of it. How could someone not realise hacking into phones is illegal? :blink:

 

Atleast it looks like some journalists are finally breaking the conspiracy of silence though

 

Well that's garbage I'm sure; they must have known it was illegal, and the papers would all have Legal departments surely? I can only assume the attitude was "oh well, everyone's doing it, so nobody will ever bother with us!" - much the same attitude as the MPs with their expenses.

And as with the MPs, the journos are only just beginning to see everything come crashing down around them.

 

I hope this isn't the end of it; I really hope there is some actual follow-up to all this.

MPs are to hold a new inquiry, which will have the power to subpaeonae - which means Rebakah Brooks and maybe even Murdoch himself could be forced to give evidence.

 

Meanwhile, Chris Bryant (one of the MPs who believes his phone was hacked) speaks for the nation when he calls Kay Burley "a bit dim" on Sky News (2:05):

 

 

MPs are to hold a new inquiry, which will have the power to subpaeonae - which means Rebakah Brooks and maybe even Murdoch himself could be forced to give evidence.

 

Meanwhile, Chris Bryant (one of the MPs who believes his phone was hacked) speaks for the nation when he calls Kay Burley "a bit dim" on Sky News (2:05):

:lol: Nice one Mr Bryant!

That is FANTASTIC. No wonder Kay Burley and her paymasters at Sky News are unhappy with this debate, given their sister organisation is the main party involved!

MPs are to hold a new inquiry, which will have the power to subpaeonae - which means Rebakah Brooks and maybe even Murdoch himself could be forced to give evidence.

 

Meanwhile, Chris Bryant (one of the MPs who believes his phone was hacked) speaks for the nation when he calls Kay Burley "a bit dim" on Sky News (2:05):

 

Kudos to Mr Bryant, that's all I can say....

 

Ooooooooh, bloody hell the irony, and how things have changed.... Remember the days when the Media was there to uncover Political corruption...? Now the Politicians are uncovering MEDIA corruption..... :lol: :lol:

 

I would just so LOVE IT if this brought the "Red Tops" crashing to the ground.....

A Dispatches programme focussing on phone tapping in the media on Channel 4 tonight includes one former News of the World reporter saying that Andy Coulson routinely listened to intercepted phone messages.

 

 

Channel Four's anonymous witness, whose words are spoken by an actor in the programme, says: "Andy was a very good editor.

 

"He was very conscientious and he wouldn't let stories pass unless he was sure they were correct ... so, if the evidence that a reporter had was a recorded phone message, that would be what Andy would know about.

 

"So you'd have to say: 'Yes, there's a recorded message.' You go and either play it to him or show him a transcript of it, in order to satisfy him that you weren't going to get sued, that it wasn't made up."

 

...

 

"It was fairly common – not so common that everybody was doing it. That wasn't the case at all. But the people who did know how to do it would do it regularly."

 

Other journalists had expected to be drawn into the police investigation, the source said, adding: "There were huge rumours swirling every day of who they were coming for next and who was going to come and cart away this person, that person and the other. And then I think the feeling in the newsroom turned to surprise that nobody else was affected."

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/0...al-andy-coulson