Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Guardian executive David Leigh has admitted to phone hacking.
Public knowledge since 2006 by the way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/dec/04/mondaymediasection
and i believe it was before it was illegal. thought 'meh' whatever 'til i saw Morgan had triumphantly retweeted it.
even if we put aside the actual facts of this case, Higginson's logic that the guardian are 'throwing stones in glass houses' and Morgan's implication that this somehow undermines the work is complete nonsense. Since all other papers, at best aware that they may be complicit in phone-hacking have stayed away from the story...even up to Andy Coulson's resignation. If the guardian have dark secrets/ or are aware that they have dark secrets surely that's even more honourable that they've nevertheless been intent on pushing phone-hacking into the public eye.
basically: fuck people, so much.
THERE IS CERTAINLY A VOYEURISTIC THRILL in hearing another person's private messages. But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets.
."there is certainly a voyeuristic thrill". becomes
John Higginson ."EXCL: Guardian exec admitted I got a 'voyeuristic thrill' from phone hacking. Deets in Metro tomorrow."
."I too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail. The trick was a simple one: the businessman in question had inadvertently left his pin code on a print-out and all that was needed was to dial straight into his voicemail.".
Seeing as though everything else is either regurgitated Mail copy, press releases or pre-planned paperazzi shots.
good to see the best-rated comment.
is taken from a quote from someone else talking about general guidelines now...not, however many years ago.
The Metro: ."Last month, Mr Rusbridger said: ‘Any intrusion must be authorised at a sufficiently senior level.’".
Rusbringer: ."Generally, I think the greater the possible intrusion by journalists the higher the public interest hurdle has to be.
I like the guidelines suggested by former spook Sir David Omand for his trade. I think they're good questions for any news organisation
* There must be sufficient cause – the intrusion needs to be justified by the scale of potential harm, which might be result from it.
* There must be integrity of motive - the intrusion must be justified in terms of the public good which would follow from publication
* The methods used must be in proportion to the seriousness of story and its public interest, using the minimum possible intrusion.
* There must be proper authority – any intrusion must be authorised at a sufficiently senior level and with appropriate oversight.
* There must be a reasonable prospect of success: fishing expeditions are not justified".
Credit to Anschul for posting it originally.