R.I.P. News of the World

I have been following this story with great interest since it broke a few days ago.

The British paper "News of the World" has maintained an international reputation as being sordid and scandalous, and not unjustly so. For 168 years they muck-raked the dirt on celebrities and public figures, telling sordid tales of the worst behaviour of humanity. In recent years it's been proven that indeed the story didn't even need to be true - it just had to be salacious enough provoke shock and outrage. And that, ultimately, is what sells papers.

For so long, stories of grotesque debauchery and sexual scandals have been tolerated, simply because they have involved celebrities. People, it is considered, that are not "real", who have so much money and prestige that they do not deserve any kind of sympathy. As a result, most people who read the paper would be quite happy to have these so called "journalists" and paparazzi hounding celebrities day and night and intruding into their private lives.

This is balanced with the journalistic "code of ethics", if it could be called that. The public has a right to know and to be informed. The press will stop at nothing to get conformation on the story. And of course, sources have to be kept anonymous.

We all know now that NewsOFT ran afoul when it started to intrude into lives (through the hacking of phones and voicemail) of the families of murder victims, politicians and fallen soldiers. This compromises their integrity and ability to inform the public.

The coverage in non-Murdoch press has been extensive (take a look on the website for NewsCorp Australia and you'll find precious little coverage, typically.) This quote is particularly chilling:

"Intrusions into the lives of celebrities and political figures by London's aggressive ''red-tops'' had long been tolerated, says John Lloyd, director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University. ''They are deemed to be able to look after themselves,'' he says. ''But to hack into the private world of ordinary people who are grieving, who have been caught up in a terrorist attack - clearly, this is bad.''

"This is bad"? That's all you have to say?

News Flash: intrusions into the private life of ANYBODY: rich, famous, powerful or otherwise, is not on and certainly NOT in the public interest. Now that we've crossed the line and intruding into the lives of ordinary people, we risk becoming a constantly watched society reminiscent of Orwell's "1984". No wonder public dissent if rife in England. I, for one, don't blame them.

Murdoch's next move would be to start a Sunday edition of his other best-selling paper "The Sun". You would have to be naive to think that this new sunday paper would be too far removed from the one that has just met it's demise. A leopard can't change its spots, and history has shown that Murdoch fits this bill to a tee.

Besides, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would want to read something a bit more substantial over their museli than stories of David Beckham sleeping with his babysitter.