A Crocodile Dundee Moment

Edit: For some odd reason, this post gets more regular hits than any other.  I'm wondering why.  It occurred to me that some people might think this is a post about knives.  It's not.  They might think it's about Paul Hogan.  Or the Crocodile Dundee films.  It's not.  But thank you for coming to my blog.  Stay a while and read.



News International have been hacked.

Some might say that it was only a matter of time, and possibly timing, because Lulzsec hacked The Sun website. It's a "That's not a knife..." moment. According to claims made by Lulz, who were reported to have disbanded, they not only replaced the website's main page and later diverted it to their twitter feed, they also have emails. Lots of emails. Which they may choose to release.

News International are in so much of a mess right now - what with the arrest, the possibilities that James and Rupert might be asked to step away from the corporation, the possible FBI investigation in the USA and perhaps whispers of one in Australia too- that this hack might well be their smallest concern right now.

On the other hand, they have rather poked the internet with a stick.

In the US, Fox has apparently been playing up the angle that one little incident of less than moral journalists listening to voicemail is not as bad as, say, the cyber record of China. True, that. On the other hand, the PRC is doing what every other nation state is doing: conducting espionage operations against powers and states who threaten their interests. It's only scary because we don't understand it. So let's have a little perspective.

If people from outside the USA hack the Pentagon and steal information, it's almost exactly the same as if they had turned a member of the defense department and got that person to steal and sell secrets. The scary part of it is that they used technology and didn't need to get anywhere near the Pentagon. Of course, the CIA and the NSA have been conducting operations against enemies of the USA. It's a safe bet that these operations have always been going on, and we never get to hear about them. It's National Security, and even if you believe fervently that no one should be doing this sort of thing at all, you can understand why they don't tell you it's going on.

The good news is that the cyberspies of China, or North Korea, or Iran, don't give a tinker's cuss about you. You, as an individual, are not interesting to them. They do not need to go grubbing about in your email for salacious details of your private life.

News International, on the other hand, might. All that needs to happen for News International to invade your privacy is for you to be involved in a 'news' story. Even peripherally. What sort of stories? Let's compare front pages.

The Sun

The Guardian

I could have linked to The Telegraph or The Independent and you'd have seen different approaches to much the same story. The thing is, while News International might have fancied a rummage around in your hard drive or your voicemail, the broadsheet papers aren't interested in you either.

The larger story remains, and will likely get lost in the kerfuffle.

The Murdoch papers and media empire have set themselves up as Kingmakers. All of a sudden, we are aware that politicians owe this company favours...not minor politicians, the actual Prime Minister of the UK is effectively in the Murdoch pocket. The price for delivering assistance in securing an election victory was a Downing Street blessing over News International owning BSkyb and increasing pressure on the BBC.

It seems strange that one can talk about an organisation that is effectively a state broadcaster, set up by Royal Commission, as being a bastion of freedom of speech. But in the last decade, as the power of News International grew, that's what the BBC effectively came to represent.

Having lived in the USA and spent some time around Fox News broadcasts (and the assorted Talk Radio broadcasters), I came to value the surprisingly even handed approach of the BBC. Yes, it leans to the left. It leans to the left like a learner biker on his first attempt at a roundabout. Which is to say "not very hard". But, and this is important, you know it's there. The BBC has often been critical of whichever government is in power, because it's had the access to ask questions of those in Downing Street. Obviously, no sitting government likes that and both Labour and the Conservatives have taken issue with things the Beeb has said.

They've been able to because there are ways to take the BBC to task. But up until very recently, there was no effective way to do the same to News International.

There may not be. It depends what the outcome of all this turns out to be. But it's important we not take our eyes off this story, because it's about one organisation's attempts to own significant parts of the English speaking world's media.

Read more...

Begun, the media snark has

The News of the World is dead, and no sooner has it gone than The Sun believes it has identified the foul conspirators who sealed the doom of this bastion of journalistic integrity and honour.

It's blaming the BBC, the Guardian and a smattering of others. But mostly the BBC and the Guardian.

It's worth remembering that the reason the BBC is roundly loathed by some of the press is because the BBC is a public service broadcaster and a major news outlet. It also makes some rather excellent television programmes. But mostly the reason News International and the Daily Mail hate the BBC is the news output.

There's quite a lot more. I've linked to one item from Paul Mason, which explains something about why this whole story is a lot more interesting than just an expose of shoddy journalism.

He notes that the broadcast media in the UK - notably BBC News, ITN News and even Sky News (which is part of BSkyb, the organisation that News International has bits of and wants to buy outright) have all played a part in keeping the whole mess in the public eye.

The Sun is attempting to remind people that the BBC is funded by the Licence Fee and that 'fat cats' waste public money. If you want to know how that money is spent, click here. A News International publication is attempting to motivate it's readers to feel incensed that the BBC could participate in taking out a rival.

Of course, now that people are aware that News International wasn't beyond lawbreaking and bribing police, they're looking at how other News International publications have behaved, and there's the possibility that they may have played less than fair.

Some of the questions this issue asks are huge.

How far can the press go in finding information to substantiate stories?

Should the freedom of the press be limited by government?

What is the Public Interest?

Should one organisation ever be allowed to become so powerful that it is capable of manufacturing consent?

How comfortable are we with our politicians owing favours to companies or organisations that do not represent the population as a whole? - because let's not forget that although Dave Cameron is most likely in hock to Murdock, generations of Labour politicians ad close ties to the Trade Union movement and it's alleged that Ed Milliband still does. Is that actually OK?

It's all worth thinking about, in an assortment of serious and careful ways. Because however nice it is to see "your side" win one, this story is more than just two media organisations going to Handbags at Dawn...it actually affects how the last election was fought, how much power people are allowed to have and how this country is run. It's like lifting up a stone to catch a glimpse of what scuttles away.

Read more...

Hacked Hacks Pack!

A sort of follow up, which is only appropriate since this is only a sort of blog.

The News of the World is closing and going away for ever. Or at least until The Sun on Sunday (or perhaps just Sun-day) starts up.

Apparently, people as annoyed about their casual use of phone phreakery and hackery mounted a small campaign using social media to raise awareness of how much distrust there is in the News of the World. Advertisers pulled ads from the paper. And Rupert Murdoch is closing it down.

Is this good news?

Not as such.

Rupert Murdoch still wants to own Sky. He still wants to dismember the BBC and he still wants to do all this with the permission of the Conservative government, who owe him big time for the election victory Murdoch's UK papers and media outlets helped them achieve.

We have to remember it wasn't all Murdoch. Labour failed magnificently to be a political party that anyone could actually vote for, but nevertheless, Murdoch's price is all about making him the sole player in the UK's media.

This all gets a bit murky, because although I love the BBC and although I believe that Mr. Murdoch's ambitions are basically incompatible with civilisation, I am forced to admit that he's a very successful businessman and he's where he is for a reason.

Having given the Devil his due... I am glad to see the back of NotW, and I am hoping to see an investigation which uncovers exactly how much we can trust News International. I doubt we'll get that, but we can hope.

I was about to launch into a rant about business, education and art. Again. I still believe that business needs to **** off out of education and we, as a nation and as a civilisation, need to pay more attention to the arts in general.

It occurred to me today that I can't remember the names of any businessmen from a hundred years ago. I remember, dimly, the names of the men who we hold responsible for the industrial revolution, and I remember the names of scientists and artists. In fact, I can remember the names of artists all the way back to the ancient greeks.

I just can't name and businessmen.

I doubt that in a hundred years time we will remember who Lord Sugar is. I doubt that we will really remember who Murdoch is, especially since the name Hearst is now fading from popular memory - even though he's linked to Citizen Kane. I don't think any of the entrepreneurs and businessfolks are ever going to be remembered and it will not matter what they said or did.

We'll remember the artists, though. I have a feeling that names like Pratchett will carry on. I have a feeling that in a century people will still know who Truffaut or Spielberg or Scorsese were. There are bound to be artists like Damian Hurst who get remembered. I think our descendants will still know about Elvis and The Beatles, perhaps even Take That.

But the names of the businessmen are dust on the wind, perhaps because deep down we really don't care what they do.

Read more...