The Dog That Didn't Bark

Though the punters (that's you, dear reader) aren't usually let in on the secret, it is a truth universally acknowledged among journalists that any story belonging exclusively to the competition must be rubbish. This has nothing to do with politics: in the early days of the Watergate scandal the New York Times, which had endorsed George McGovern, ran fewer than a third as many column inches on the story as the Washington Post.There are (very rare) exceptions: one of the many pleasures of Robert Caro's The Power Broker is his account of the way Fred Cook, the great muckraking reporter at the New York World-Telegram (and a longtime contributor to The Nation) kept his expose of Robert Moses alive by sharing the material with a friend (and competitor) at the Post. But so far the Guardian, which last Wednesday broke the news of how two newspapers belonging to Rupert Murdoch illegally hacked into the mobile phone accounts of "two or three thousand" people, as well as "gaining unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemized phone bills [belonging to] Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars" has the story pretty much to itself.

On the surface this is surprising. Here, after all, is a story that combines boldface names like Gwyneth Paltrow, Elle MacPherson, Nigella Lawson and George Michael with the official spokesman of the Conservative Party (Andy Coulson, media strategist for Tory leader David Cameron, was editor of the News of the World when the paper allegedly paid private investigators for access to the celebrities' accounts) and Rupert Murdoch, the world's most powerful media baron. The BBC put the story at the top of its world news lineup, and followed up the next day with a story about how some of famous targets were contemplating lawsuits. So why has the Guardian's incredible scoop turned out to be a 2 day wonder?

Partly, I suspect, precisely because it was a scoop. London has five "quality" papers: The Times (owned by Murdoch), the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent and the Daily Mail. No American city has anything to match the cut-throat competition of British journalism, and though papers here are bleeding financially just as badly as those in the US, fighting over a shrinking market has only increased their mutual ferocity. The story was also just complicated enough to need a lot of space--not something most editors want to give to a rival. The hacking part was straightforward, but the story seems to have originated in sealed court documents that formed part of a settlement between the News of the World and its Murdoch tabloid stablemate, the Sun, and the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, the soccer players' union. And while the BBC has every reason to rejoice in any potential embarrassment to Murdoch, owner of its rival Sky, there is no evidence that the Australian billionaire was himself aware of how his underlings were spending his money.

Still, in a society increasingly sensitive to surveillance, but just waking up to the idea that Big Brother may not work for the state after all, this is a story that deserves to run and run. So here's a suggestion for reporter Nick Davies and his bosses: when it comes time to break the next piece of this puzzle, maybe instead of splashing "exclusive" on the front page you should consider giving part of it away. And if the thought of sharing with one of your direct competitors is too distasteful, you know where to find me.

Comments (13)

1. "And while the BBC has every reason to rejoice in any potential embarrassment to Murdoch, owner of its rival Sky, there is no evidence that the Australian billionaire was himself aware of how his underlings were spending his money. "

   yeah, but it does paint another smear on the murdoch model of swirling news, pop cultural crap, and veiled ideology into a mind numbing swirl of marching moron manipulating and tranquilizing lullabie.

   but in the big picture its simply not going to shake the world. just verifies what many thoughtful observers suspected all along.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

2. Always love conservatives who like the "wholesome American values" of Fox News....

   and know nothing of what's on "Page 3" of Murdoch's "Sun." (or seem to care)

   Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:51pm

3. As this story was breaking, Murdoch's Sky TV was running an exclusive interview with Obama (otherwise immersed in his Vatican/Africa program), wherein Obama came to Gordon Brown's rescue on Brits in Afghanistan ... Obama echoed Brown, that the US & UK were killing Afghanis to stop terrorism from coming to the UK & Europe.

   Same line W & Blair peddled ... this from the president of change you can believe in.

   Posted by sloper at 07/13/2009 @ 3:02pm

4. Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2009 @ 1:49pm

   By itself, sure, this story is not earthshaking. But as an example of the abuse of privacy by the private sector, something that worries folks across the political spectrum (e.g., William Safire), this should be a hot story, especially given all of the sizzle that goes with it.

   Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:51pm

   Or, they love Fox News but ignore the crassness of the Fox network. To be fair, though, I believe some conservatives (the Family Research Counsil?) have criticized the latter.

   Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2009 @ 3:04pm

5. Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2009 @ 3:04pm

   Doesn't stop them from tuning in, does it, CKA?

   Nor could we doubt that if Les Mooves was running "girlie photos" on another outlet , they'd link it to Katie Couric...or if GE owned a strip club, they'd link it to Brian Williams.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 3:12pm

6. and know nothing of what's on "Page 3" of Murdoch's "Sun." (or seem to care)

   Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:51pm

   What does it have to do with anything in the US?

   Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 4:52pm

7. MASK, these same cons don't even know about Washington Times owner and his claim to be King of the Universe, his problems with the laws of the United States, his mass brainwashing and his forced marriages of his disciples. You expect them to care about Murdocks naked girls in UK when Katie Couric is savaging the cons Shiny Bauble MILF?

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 06:49am

8. The link on the word "me" at the end of your story is broken, which will presumably make it harder to find you.

   Jason Crane

   http://thejazzsession.com

   Posted by hepkats at 07/14/2009 @ 12:06pm

9. "One need only observe the UK media's "distaste" for George Galloway - the last true Rebel and Patriot in the UK? - to know where things are headed."

   Right on, IlyaKuryakin. The Brits have always been our model for state control and imperialism, but it seems we've beaten them (and ourselves) at their own filthy game, at least as far as media control of the plebs goes. I lived in the UK in the seventies, when many Brits were first realizing that the sun DOES set on any empire, including theirs. It felt a LOT like the growing pains of this country lately, only a lot more pleasant, since the "illuminati" hadn't quite taken everything, yet.

   Posted by DejaVu at 07/14/2009 @ 12:26pm

10. Jealousy may indeed inspire British journalists to dismiss the 'scoops' of other papers, but this article is rather undermined by the recent orgy of repeats from (sadly) The Telegraph's exclusives on the MPs' expenses scandal, gleefully reprinted in every other British newspaper and many abroad besides, and with full credit given to the Torygraph.

    A more probable cause is that, in the case of the Graun's exclusive on the phone hacking scandal, many other British newspapers, including some of the more 'reputable' broadsheets, have also resorted to underhand tactics to acquire stories in the past, including The Sunday Times, and so are understandably reluctant to start throwing stones at their own glass houses.

    Posted by jackheron at 07/15/2009 @ 02:22am

11. "True, the UK's news is about 9,000,000,000 light years ahead of ANYTHING in the US or Canada"

    Like hell. I have lived in England. There is no "freedom of the press" as we know it in the U.S. The media are barred from reporting any details of ongoing criminal investigations, major stories are given about 3 sentences basically re-hashing the headline, and it mostly seems to be about as informative as listening to a newscaster wearing a gag.

    That said, I try to read the beeb every day

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/15/2009 @ 6:37pm

12. The very reason I subscribe to The Nation is to have some source with honest reporting. You will not find that on any television news "Shows". Most greedy, spineless local newspapers are close to dead for more than their advertising. The advertisers would use local papers if readership was large enough. Why read a paper that puts out fluffy stories and never reports the hard facts that are essential to freedom for all. Greed and more greed! Early on in the Bush administration we never had a newspaper stand up when constitutional rights were violated. Especially involving the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay detention camp and other unconstitutional laws. We pass laws only when sensationalized crimes happen. The media serves up some good old fashioned fear and the populous absorbs it into every pore of their being. Never questioning! Never doubting! Never Researching! Just apathetically accepting what is serve up through the television and newspapers. Newspapers should have a section on what the television news reported and what was not correct in the reporting. In elections you won't see stories about Judges running for office. You vote your favorite name or just leave it blank because you don't want to vote without the information. Many sources give you the information you need. We all need to be involved in protecting all peoples rights. That helps us and those we love too.

    Posted by marlayne at 07/15/2009 @ 9:00pm

13. '...And the findings of the report are even more damning, if that is possible, than the conclusions reached by the Senate and Volcker investigations. In particular, they make reference to the transcript of a meeting between Galloway and Saddam Hussein on Aug. 8, 2002. On that date, Galloway complained to his political master--the man he had saluted in public for his "courage" and "indefatigability"--that certain problems with oil prices were affecting "our income" and "our dues."

    This raises two quite serious questions. The first is the extent to which the Iraqi Baath Party was able to purchase direct influence among Western politicians: George Galloway has been a hysterically extremist political thug for a long time, but others more supposedly "respectable," including some important Russian and French politicians and diplomats, may have been sweetened and suborned in the same way. The second has to do with a purely moral issue. The "Oil for Food" program was the means by which the most vulnerable people in Iraq--the children, the sick, and the aged--were supposed to be protected from the effect of sanctions aimed at the regime. To have profited from its abuse or its diversion is therefore somewhat worse than to have accepted a straight-out bribe or inducement from Saddam Hussein. It is to have stolen directly from the neediest and the weakest, in order to finance a propaganda campaign that in turn blamed the West for the avoidable sufferings of Iraqis between 1991 and 2003.' -- Christopher Hitchens -- Slate -- 23 July, 2007 -- http://www. slate.com/id/2170981/ nav/navoa/

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/16/2009 @ 10:58am