Yellow journalism revisited

By Don Klein

The Murdock hacking scandal in Britain is an example of the  worst journalistic behavior the world has witnessed in modern times. It is tantamount to the yellow journalism spree engaged in more than a hundred years ago by the Hearst newspapers.

Back then William Randolph Hearst was blamed by many for getting the United States into the war with Spain over its then Cuban colony after the battleship Maine blew up while moored in Havana harbor.

Frederick Remington was an artist for Hearst’s New York Journal at a time when newspaper artists were the photo journalists of that era. The Maine was in Cuba as the American response to alleged Spanish atrocities against Cuba civilians.  The reports proved wrong.

 But that was not good news for Hearst in a circulation war with the then dominant New York World, owned by Joseph Pulitzer. Newspapers were the prime source of information in 1898 and a war heightened circulation figures.

 Most of the atrocities reported by Hearst papers were concocted by rebels and disseminated by Hearst and the source of the Maine’s destruction was never pinned down. Spanish conspiracy for the attack was never proven. This was not satisfactory for Hearst, edged on by the lure of circulation enhancement.

Remington in Cuba cabled Hearst in New York, “There is no war. Request to be recalled,” he said. Like all journalists, if there was no story he wanted return to his home base. Hearst shot back: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures. I’ll furnish the war.”

We all know what happened. The US went to war with Spain. Cuba and the Philippines were liberated and history was altered, partially in an ugly drive to improve newspaper circulation.

The Murdoch case was not as provocative as the Spanish-American War after the sinking of the Maine, nor did it end with blood on anyone’s hands, but it was driven by the same repugnant motives – to enhance newspaper circulation by underhanded and illegal means.

In the Murdock hacking case, James Murdock, son of the patriarch of the New Corporation which runs the Murdock news empire told a committee of the British Parliament that the hacking was carried out by rogue reporters and that he and other Murdock corporate heads knew nothing of the practice.

Of course everyone who knows how news organizations operate knew that this defense was hogwash, especially since the publishing company paid out heavy settlements over the years to victims of the hacking. Editors seldom, if ever, engage in unprofessional behavior without the exhorting and enthusiasm of  owners. Furthermore editors I worked for,and others I knew, would never  last very long if they were not forthright.

 News gathering organizations do not settle claims of irresponsible behavior without fully examining the facts in each case since a news company’s most important stock and trade with the public is its trustworthiness. If the public loses faith in the organization’s  believability they cannot survive for long.

 James and his father, Rupert, who claimed the day he was brought up before the legislative committee was “the worst day of his life” testified they were innocent victims of this despicable tradition of hacking by members of their newspapers. This is equivalent to New England  Patriots head coach Bill Belichick being shocked to learn that his minions were filming opponents practice sessions.

As an old newspaper man I could attest to the fact that never is a controversial story ever printed without the writer explaining to the bosses how the crucial information was gathered. One of the key words in journalism, especially when the information is sensitive, is “sources.” All reporters have to disclose to their editors the source of the information before the story is used.

The simple conclusion is that the reporters on the now defunct News of the World, the Murdock paper that is accused of the hacking, were not working on their own. They acted with the full knowledge of their editors and the editors had approval to employ such tactics from the owners. That is a given.

When Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst, slipped the infamous Pentagon Papers concerning the false government claims on the Viet Nam War in 1971 to The New York Times, the newspaper published the sensitive documents only after The Times top management authorized it. That is how it works.

Something as crucial as government secret papers would never have been published without the bosses knowing about it and approving. The same procedure occurs with all types of important information that comes to a newspaper, especially through illegal methods like hacking.  Actually most newspapers will not use hacked information.

The Murdoch’s knew and encouraged their underlings to practice hacking to get exclusive stories in order to increase circulation and boost advertising sales and it is ridiculous for anyone to believe otherwise.

Parliament's investigation into the hacking scandal now revealed new documents which appear to confirm these conclusions. The Murdochs knew about the hacking years ago and did not stop it. The information has severely damaged the reputation of the News Corporation and the Murdochs’ leadership, both in Britain and the United States.

 The evidence is a series of  2008 e-mail messages confirming the accounts of two of James Murdoch’s former senior executives, an in-house lawyer and an editor, who said they had told him of the illegal telephone hacking messages to gather news and gossip went beyond a single “rogue reporter.”

Everyone in the business knew that eventually the truth would come out and we can conclude that the Murdochs are the worst kind of people to operate news organizations in an ethical society. Their operational behavior is  contemptuous and their sworn testimony before Parliament was a farce.