We have not posted any discussion threads about the News Corp ‘News of The World’ media controversy basically because it was playing out on a broad spectrum overseas.  And, quite frankly, it appeared to be a fire fueled within the media empire itself.  But looking at the primary developments I cannot help but notice a relative amount of hypocrisy within the story.
The primary issues, as far as I can tell, center around two activities that people are finding abhorrent, unethical and possibly illegal.   The first issue centers around reporters who gained access to various famous (or important people’s) voice mail accounts and listened to their messages in an effort to gain some kind of news scoop or insider information.   The second issue is reporters of newspapers who have been identified as bribing the police for information about famous or important people’s travel arrangements and itineraries; again to gain some kind of scoop for a news story.  Both the reporters and the police involved are being investigated.
Granted both activities I personally find ridiculous.  However, how is it more wrong to listen to a voice mail than say to root through their trash, or use a 4,000 mm super telephoto lens to peek into their bedroom?   Or even to employ parabolic listening devices to peer into their conversations?   What exactly is the distinction?   Sure it should be illegal to access a persons private voice mail or messaging system, but shouldn’t that same consideration be also applied to their physical presence in real-time?  If not, why not?
News reporters and paparazzi routinely engage in stalking, following, photographing, videotaping, listening, and secretly attempting to engage in tracking and documenting everything about certain people.   I just don’t see how listening to their voice messaging systems, from remote access, is any more inappropriate than the aforementioned actions that are considered to be acceptable.   It all seems like semantics and splitting hairs to me.   All of this nonsense operates in some kind of “self-policed” grey area.
It is, at the very least, certainly understandable how an indistinct line can be crossed in this world of grey indistinguishable and every changing world of media ethics they construct around themselves.   And by “they” I mean the entire media world.   Not just the Rupert Murdock’s section of the media world, all of it.
Consider the guy that chased Sarah Palin around and rented a house next door just to peek into her windows and take pictures of them under the auspices of writing a book.   How is he less creepy than a random reporter who might call their house and listen to their answering machine?   They both seem equally grotesque and horrid to me.   The outrage just seems disingenuous.
Or is the media now fawning outrage only because they were caught?
Wouldn’t you think that the death of Princess Diana would have woken up the media world to a better place of policing themselves?  And absent of such self-correction, who are they to now show such contempt for activities within one who is caught when they all participate in the very same activity.
On the second concern about bribing a police officer for information as to the activities and whereabouts of politicians, famous people, and celebrities.  Well the outrage and astonishment on this too seems a little disingenuous.   What is the difference between bribing a police officer to know where Lady Kate is headed, and that same police officer employing a paid informant for information about illegal activity?   What about the bar tender who calls the reporter because one of the famous regulars is on site?   When the reporter, or paparazzi slips the bar tender $100 for the tip is he breaking the law?   What about the lawyers who pay police for information about accidents and victims.
You see, from where I sit there’s a whole ‘slippery slope thing’ going on where all of a sudden the media erupts in outrage, meanwhile we all know the entire macro industry participates in the same micro activity they are supposedly outraged about.   Do you think that Casey Anthony will not be highly compensated for her first sit down interview?   The news does not operate in a vacuum, it is an effort of active engagement, psy-ops and one-upmanship in an effort to gain position.
The top reporters have huge expense accounts specifically for this purpose, and the editors approve as such all the time.  Heck, Woodward and Bernstein might have paid off “deep throat” for the information, or perhaps they just paid for lunch or dinner.  Is that wrong too?
I can see how the police providing information that might be “security sensitive” to a diplomat or politician might be “over the line”, and I am certain that within the ethical standards of law enforcement there are rules that prohibit as such.  But again it all just seems to be operating within this grey area they are supposed to self-police?   How do you define what is a security risk and what isn’t?   So the Police won’t tell you where Prince Harry is today, but they’ll tell you about the shopkeeper who had a dustup with his wife because he came home drunk.   It’s all a matter of importance I guess, but to the shopkeeper his privacy is just as important as Prince Harry.   These nudge-nudge, wink-wink, deals are simply common place.
Yup the doorman might make a quick $20 telling a reporter what time Huma Abedin came home last night, or where’s the favorite bagel shop.   Should that be banned/outlawed, or brought before Congress/Parliament too?   How exactly do you expect to police all this grey area, and who exactly is supposed to do all the policing?

Lastly, if it is happening at one organization you can bet your last nickel a whole bunch of other organization’s reporters and editors hogged the shredding machines, deleted computer files, and scrubbed contact lists toot sweet as soon as the smoke they were accustomed to turned to fire, then to a blazing inferno.   It seems profoundly hypocritical now to watch the competitors of the News Corp organization pile on with glee, when you know these rocks are being thrown from inside glass media houses.
All this fawned outrage just seems completely disingenuous to me.   Your thoughts?