In the wake of the News of the World’s demise, there have been various voices making the point that the current crop of employees weren’t responsible for the sins of their forebears and have therefore been treated unfairly. On one level, I do feel sympathy. I have experienced the loss of income suddenly and without warning followed by eighteen months of financial penury. So, yes, I sympathise with that.
However, the News of the World like its tabloid siblings was a gutter rag that gorged on the misfortunes of others. If the exposés were confined to criminal behaviour, then fine, I could overlook the dubious tactics used to obtain the story as it would be undoubtedly in the public interest. An ends justifies the means argument could hold up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, all too often, the story is little more than tittle-tattle and gossip. Unlike some, I draw no distinction between eavesdropping on a celeb and eavesdropping on murder victims. The context is different and adds a degree of repugnance but that is all – it is still immoral and it is still illegal and there is no justification. Satisfying the prurient, sinful lust for detailed knowledge of the peccadillos of others is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a justification.
Some have mentioned France as an example of what we could end up with. Frankly, I would have no great problem with this. The French do not get themselves into a lather because a politician cannot keep it in his pants. What matters is the polices and professional behaviour of the person, not their sexual encounters. So, no, I don’t care if John Prescott couldn’t control his lust, just as it was no concern to me that Robin Cook, John Major or Chris Huhne did likewise. It only becomes a concern if it directly affects their behaviour in government – if they do one thing and preach another (John Major and the back to basics, for example). Then, yes, it is relevant. Otherwise, no, it is not.
Journalists who work for a red top are entering into a contract of employment with a monster that feeds voraciously on the misfortune and misery of others. So while I am sympathetic towards those who lost their jobs this weekend, that sympathy is tempered somewhat by the knowledge that their employment was at the expense of other peoples’ privacy. Not to mention that since the phone hacking (it isn’t hacking, but we’ll let that pass) ceased, the NotW was responsible for stories that libelled people and invaded others’ privacy leading to court action and payouts. The current crop were, most certainly, responsible or that.
So, no, not that sympathetic.
That sums up my thoughts precisely.
All they did was originate, or regurgitate gossip. Did they do any good works? Were they attempting to save lives? Did they contribute and make the world a better place?
No, no, and no.
No loss to mankind. None at all.
Now. How do we ensure that all the other papers fail as well?
CR.
t only becomes a concern if it directly affects their behaviour in government
Such as with Dati?
To play Devil’s Advocate, the trouble is that you can’t tell whether someone shagging someone else is of public interest unless you do know who both parties are and who else the second party is shagging. Most of the time it’s of absolutely zero importance, but every now and then you’re going to get what we might call a ‘Profumo’.
The same argument can be used in any case, police, army, traffic wardens, tax collectors. It is also used as a justification for selecting family members for retribution.
It is a difficult call. Myself I don’t believe in the sins of the father being of any relevance to the son even where he has benefited from those sins.
Others will disagree.
We all draw the line in the sand in different places.
CR,
‘All they did was originate, or regurgitate gossip. Did they do any good works? Were they attempting to save lives? Did they contribute and make the world a better place?’
I would guess 99% of the worlds population would fail that test. Few originate ideas, few save lives, few do good work and most don’t make the world a better place.
Those that do are few and far between.
Actually, I wasn’t planning any retribution – despite despising most of those groups. My point about the NotW was the claim that the current crop weren’t guilty. Of eavesdropping voicemails, maybe not, but they were certainly guilty of invasion of privacy and libel, so I am happy to limit my sympathy for their plight.
AE – in answer to your devil’s advocate, I’d say this; if they have clear evidence of malfeasance, then there is a case to investigate further. If not, then no investigation is necessary. I’d rather the guilty got away with it than the innocent had their lives splashed across the tabloids.
I have no sympathy for the NoTW journalists. They spent their lives claiming that life on the dole was far better than working. They can now experience that ‘much better’ life first hand. I wonder if they’ll like it?
Thank Stephen.
As an ex-“dole scrounger”, you just put a smile on my face with that comment!
Sex antics can reflect morality.
Take that sack of shit David Mellor who paraded his family at his garden gate to show what a “Family Guy” he was while shagging around everywhere. A male (not a man) who will lie to and exploit his own family will certainly do the same to the voters/taxpayers.
I did cover this point in the main article.
So are you suggesting that we should not be particularly concerned if a man in a position of great power and influence makes a habit of sexually assaulting random women he meets in the course of his daily life?
That it is nothing to worry about and has no bearing on his suitability for high office?
And that, if such is the case, and the press is forbidden to comment on it, then that is OK as well, nothing to see here, move along please?
To put it mildly, I disagree.
No.