Phone hacking is a damn good idea, in my opinion
Dear Iain Dale,
Well done for spotting yet another attempt by journalists to infiltrate the Conservative Party yesterday. For the third time in two years, a newspaper has attempted to plant a mole inside the party to gain access to inside information. However, your conclusions about the evils of phone hacking and journalist infiltration might need to be looked at again because, depending on the situation, the use of such techniques becomes considerably less black and white.
Yesterday you caught the Sunday Times trying their luck: “In the latest operation, a man claiming to be a business consultant applied to become a member of a Conservative donor club. …The man spoke to party officials on the telephone, attended an introductory fund-raising event, and was emailed a list of other events he could attend – hosted by senior members of the Shadow Cabinet – once he was a fully paid-up member. The plot fell apart when a Sunday Times reporter, Claire Newell, accidentally contacted an official in the party’s Treasurers Department by e-mail and acknowledged receipt of the information sent to the ‘donor.’ Her e-mail said: “Thanks. Quite a line-up!” Shortly afterwards – realising she had sent the e-mail to the wrong address – she tried to withdraw it, but not before it had been read by the Treasurers Department. Party officials say the email was clearly intended for the new ‘donor’ and that Miss Newell was in regular contact with him. They have written to the man telling him that it is no longer possible for him to belong to any of the party’s donor clubs. Two years ago the party foiled a bid by the Daily Mirror to plant an undercover reporter, Emily Miller, in the office of Caroline Spelman, who was then party chairman. …Last October the party also uncovered an attempt by Jenny Williams, an undercover reporter with Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, to join another donor club.” Your conclusion to this blogpost was reasonable enough: “OK, it’s not quite on the level of the [News of the World] blagging scandal, but it is yet another illustration of the way national newspapers seem to think this sort of behaviour is acceptable.” In an earlier post yesterday, you also complained about numerous attempts by the Sunday Times to dig up dirt on Michael Ashcroft’s tax situation, which laid bare the lengths that journalists are willing to go (and the laws they are willing to break) in order to get their story. Journalists hacking phones, lying, deceiving, breaking the law – it all sounds pretty cut and dry. Or does it?
Let’s take the News of the World story and put a little twist on it:
“The News of the World claimed victory today after evidence that their journalists collected led to the conviction of four terrorist suspects in the UK. In an undercover ’sting’ operation, two journalists – posing as Muslims who had recently moved to the area – managed to gain access to a growing terrorist cell inside one of Britain’s largest mosques. Once they had been accepted into the cell after several months of careful planning, they hacked into the mobile phones of the cell’s members in order to collect evidence regarding their activities and contacts with other groups. Through these methods, it is thought that they uncovered a potential attack on national infrastructure such as power plants and railway lines. The suspects were each sentenced to a minimum of 20 years behind bars thanks to the information gathered by these two brave journalists who put their own safety on the line for several months in order to subvert terrorist activities here in the UK.”
And now, let’s take the attempts by journalists to force their way into the Conservative Party and put a little twist on that too:
“Today, the News of the World can stand tall after the convictions of 14 men on charges of possessing illegal images of children and distributing them in a Europe-wide paedophile ring. This marks the end of a daring piece of investigative journalism by a News of the World reporter who managed to infiltrate this paedophile group using a combination of fake identities and fake photographic images. Over the course of several months, the reporter joined the group and gained the trust of its members, leading to the collection of various usernames that the paedophiles were using on several filesharing and social networking sites. Once sufficient data had been collected on the members of this group, the reporter went to the police who were then able to make arrests in the UK and abroad using the information that the reporter had collected.”
Now, I know that these might be extreme examples, but my point is this: hacking phones and trying to infiltrate organisations sounds bad when you read about it on blogs and in newspapers, but the reality is that it’s all a matter of context. Hacking mobile phones is against the law, but if this had been done to break up a terrorist attack, I seriously doubt that even the Guardian would take issue with it. What if a journalist lied their way into a paedophile ring to smash it into tiny pieces from the inside? Or, if we really want to test people’s moral courage, what about if a journalist had infiltrated the BNP and dished the dirt on how their party works and how they are funded? Would the Guardian have batted an eyelid? Would any blogger or newspaper stand up for the BNP’s rights? I seem to remember all the Lefty bloggers dancing for joy when the BNP membership list was leaked, so presumably they would have no problem if the Labour Party or Lib Dems were infiltrated by a lying journalist and their own party torn apart from the inside?
While I agree with you in general that “it is in the public interest that the legal system, and parliamentary system is used to hold those responsible to account” when it comes to journalists overstepping the mark, I’m not convinced that it’s easy to make a principled stand on such behaviour. I am a strong advocate for better privacy laws in the UK because I think the way that the media can throw your life open to the world is absolutely disgusting, but if a journalist threw the life of a murderer or paedophile or terrorist open to the world, I must admit that my principle would be a little shaken and I don’t know how I’d react. I think your analysis of the recent behaviour of journalists is very fair, but I wonder whether we’d both have the same reaction if journalists had targetted somebody else…..
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“..a journalist threw the life of a murderer or paedophile or terrorist open to the world, I must admit that my principle would be a little shaken and I don’t know how I’d react.”
I’d react by wondering why they didn’t hand the relevant information to the police or security services and let THEM deal with it, frankly!
Perhaps, but how many times have we seen someone’s life laid out in all its glory by the media and not even batted an eyelid? We don’t question journalists’ methods when they expose some evil corporate executive who destroyed the company pension scheme or whatever – it’s the selectivity of our interest in how journalists get their information that bugs me.
LFAT. You make the point that the methods used by journos to get a story are frequently underhand and sometimes illegal. Would not a defence of entrapment be available to the the Defence and any evidence found in such a way be inadmissible? I seem to remember the IRA doing quite well using this defence.
While a Paper might be willing to publish against paedophiles, who are considered an easy target, it would be a brave editor who ran an entrapment scam against Islamic terrorists. Those guys react violently against such tactics, and I honestly can’t see a newspaper putting themselves in a position where they could be blamed for another 7/7 or similar. As you say, the public are very selective.
It’s forgivable if it’s a “just”* cause, such as trying to prevent terrorism or peado rings, but I’m not entirely sure what the Times was trying to establish?
I suppose it all comes down to what we consider to be in the interests of the public. Uncovering terrorists’ plots- yes, infiltrating the Tories to show that they treat their donors well and invite them to parties- probably not. Why didn’t they do the same with Labour? The journalist may end up in the House of Lords, and then possibly even the Cabinet…..
*I’m aware of the indeterminate nature of this word.
GOH, I think you’re right that a lot of phone intercept evidence is inadmissable in court, but that wouldn’t necessarily stop a newspaper from starting a campaign on the basis of their evidence. Maybe you’re right about newspapers not always wanting to publish controversial information, but when they are newspapers that need selling….
GK, the ‘public interest’ issue is indeed worth mentioning but it is still largely a subjective judgement about what the law is willing to accept.
I think you’re being a bit too kind to Iain to say that he actualy *caught* the Sunday Times trying to infiltrate a Tory donors club.
Once again, Iain is merely reporting what the Tories have passed to him.
Oh, you cynic!
I’m alright with the journalists trying to infiltrate (even though I generally don’t like it), but I’m equally alright with the Tories and any other party doing what they can to prevent it. Some of the commentators on Ian Dale’s blog defended the right of papers to infiltrate whilst criticising the Conservatives for stopping infiltrators. Seems a tad hypocritical.
Like I said, context is the key which means that subjective judgements about ‘public interest’ and acceptability will vary depending on who is being screwed over by the journalists.
The defence of privilege would cover all the examples you cite, but that cannot justify hacking into phones in the hope of finding something for the paper.
There was an excellent discussion of this area in the Culture/Media Commons Committee yesterday with the Guardian Journalist involved in the latest case. Here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=4593
I detest the “press exposure of paedophiles” angle, and hate the people who do it to benefit their newspapers, since there are a number of people who are dead – murdered by vigilantes – because they have been mistaken for those “exposed”, or caught in an atmosphere of hysteria before being put on trial. Several examples:
http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/news/2284851.man_killed_was_mistaken_for_a_paedophile/
http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2005/5/4/14396.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/24/childprotection.society
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm
Yes people have made mistakes, but innocent people are still dead. Rebecca Wade spearheaded this type of campaign, and she has a lot of blood on her hands.
True Matt, intentions are always important and speculative hacking is no doubt very difficult to justify – if not impossible – in a court of law. The paedophile example that I came up with was obviously there to provide a context where the public might support the journalist, even if the law does not. The consequences of that support, however, can indeed be tragic.
The point that concerns me is that this fishing will lead to a tightening up on legitimate investigation.
BTW One to watch: legal challenge to Operation Ore:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5587354/Has-Operation-Ore-left-a-scar-on-British-justice.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/02/web-child-abuse-inquiry-challenge
An appeal is planned.
The papers have always been able to get away with phone tapping and other tricks, the law has always turned a blind eye to it to help preserve a free press and because when used properly it can lead to good investigative journalism in the public good.
But look at the papers. The freedom they have is constantly misused. When was the last time we honestly believed what we read in the papers. The truth is hidden behind a wall of fabrication, designed to sell papers because they think it is what the public want to read. The Telegraph has been a prime example of this over the expenses row. They made all kinds of allegations, but politicians were given no right of reply and it is quite clear that they printed stories which they knew at the time were untrue because they thought that with the mood of the country they thought that no one could successfully sue them, or that it was worth the risk to sell the copy.
Journalists, use your freedom properly, or find yourself on the end of prosecution.
@Tony E –
Tony,
I think the Telegraph is a bad example.
They alleged that MPs spent money on or tried to claim for things based on receipts. They MPs were given the right of reply and what could the MPs’ sue for anyway? That is exactly the sort of thing the papers should be doing.
The Telegraph had evidence and it was definately in the public interest… unless you’re an MP.