Hack Attack, and the politics of fear

“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” – John Steinbeck

            At first I thought media moguls like Rupert Murdoch had influence on government officials purely because of money. Although I have no doubt that money is a factor, I now see it as more of the icing on the cake; It’s nice to have and convenient to be able to throw around but, in the end, power and the fear it inspires are what allow News Corp to be as influential as it unfortunately seems to be.

            If, for example, a prime minister looking for re-election refuses to cooperate with a media mogul, that rebellion could cost them funding and public support (no matter how true the newspaper’s allegations may be). Instead of losing power, it seems that the media mogul in question would rather unfairly cheapen the prime minister’s name through a smear campaign and tilt public opinion towards a candidate that would be easier to control. The loss of control seems to be more influential than its gain.

            Fear is a powerful motivator, and quite an unpleasant feeling. If you present someone, anyone, a task laced with fear or intimidation, often they will want to get it done regardless of method or consequence, simply to make the fear go away as completely and quickly as possible. This does not, however, in any way make it acceptable for anyone to use that against others – no matter their net worth. 

Hack Attack: after finishing 2/3 of the book

           Throughout this book something has been hounding me. The question of ‘how?’ seems to apply to every new piece of information; yes Coulson denied everything, but how did anyone buy that; how could Scotland Yard take a cursory look at News of the World and call it a “careful investigation”; how could a line of Prime Ministers appear to become Murdoch’s personal boot lickers, quaking when he or one of his henchmen calls upon them? (To the Prime Minister’s and Scotland Yard’s credits, this is simply the agitated view of one who has yet to ascertain the entire story. I have hope there is some instance of bravery that has yet to be revealed.)

            I am still searching for the answers to my deluge of how; nevertheless, there are some things that have become clear. For instance, I have finally shed my impression that these newspapers were competing for readership; it was a misleading veil grasping to hold on to naïve hopes of moral decency. It seems that, for every decent newspaper whose mission truly is to inform society (journalism without brainwashing? Perish the thought.), there is another who exists not to inform but to manipulate, to persuade, to make more money.

When I first started reading about how much News Corp was getting away with, my initial reaction was to question how the authorities – police, politicians, etc. – could possibly turn their heads, bow to the will of this hideous operation. Now, however, I am two-thirds of the way through Hack Attack with a clearer understanding of the methods of bullying employed by Murdoch’s pets, and I can’t help but show concern for my potential level of hypocrisy. Had I been in the same place, would I have possessed the incredible fortitude that Nicola Phillips exhibited, or would I have cowed at the first call threatening my career? After learning so much about those controlled by power and money, will I bother to reevaluate what influences me, or will I take the easy route and settle back into blissful ignorance?

              For now, I am eager to keep reading.

Hack Attack: After finishing the first third of the book

           The one impression that remains in the foreground of my mind while reading Nick Davies’ accounts of Fleet Street journalism is my incredulity at how easily the lawlessness seems to bleed through the ranks of the tabloid papers and into other institutions. Murdoch-owned British tabloid journalism seems to be a force with a visage complex Dorian Gray would identify with. To the casual observer (or bribed authority figure) the monopoly seems perfectly fine, albeit a tad enamored with itself. Even though it reeks of mischief it is accepted because of the pleasing aesthetic form- the front pages splashed with images of the young, beautiful, and scandalized. Their true self is hidden away with consequences for those who choose not to conveniently forget the grotesque image they have witnessed.

            There’s a question that fuels my naïve disbelief, leaves me unsatisfied there is any reason or excuse one would get so carried away as to subject another person to this kind of treatment. I can’t help but wonder what was powerful enough to start this, what is so feared and desired as to convince an entire business that it is perfectly acceptable to flirt with legal, moral boundaries, tap dance into private lives, and hold no regard for guilt. Davies flags Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of Murdoch-owned newspaper the Sun from 1981-94, as the reason for so much going wrong in British journalism. MacKenzie is described as a terror who threw caution to the wind and the rulebook out the window, starting a generation of newspaper workers terrified for their careers and who were instructed to ignore moral journalistic standards.

            The more I read, the more News Corps seems to be a Dorian Gray- I only hope that the two don’t share the same fate. 

Historical View - Reading A History of News Chapters 7 and 12

          The history of the news seems to hinge upon the whims of humanity’s fickle nature – and short attention span. I think the History of News book sums it up perfectly when referencing what Conor Cruise O’Brien calls “the Scheherazade Syndrome”. This so-called ‘syndrome’ makes the reader the boss who says “like the Sultan, ‘If you bore me, you die.’” Although it does seem a bit extreme to put the reader in place of a Sultan who beheaded a wife a day, fighting for your life (or, in this case, the life of a newspaper) by telling a story is, essentially, what keeps the news going. To some, the idea of a news outlet that exudes unbiased fact and distributes only serious news updates may sound nice; however, after reading these chapters on human interests and how they have affected the media, I am of the opinion that we need the occasional fluff piece.

            I am not, by any means, belittling the role of in-depth political analyses. I am, however, saying that even sensationalist crime and gossip pieces provide an insight into the human condition that a summary of politics or stock market prices just can’t provide. Unbiased, informative news pieces are equally as necessary as passionate opinion pieces that cry for a call to arms or the latest criminal sensation.

Dunja Mijatovic and the OSCE

This past Thursday, Webster Vienna was proud to host Dunja Mijatovic, a press freedom advocate and the Representative on freedom of the media at the Organization For Security and Co-operation in Europe (the OSCE). She is a very accomplished and intelligent woman who, during her talk, spoke not only of The power the media has over it's audience, but also the power of those who own the media. Dunja speaks of difficult situations Where governments and politicians own more and more media avenues in order to censor and control information that gets to the public. This means that good, courageous, unbiased journalism is becoming harder to find, especially when sorting through a sea of false or misleading news reports.
The talk with Dunja, although interesting, seemed too short. The audience received a summary of the OSCE's duties and Dunja's opinions on the state of media ownership; however, neither were elaborated upon to the extent that the topics deserved. A very important call to arms was made, but it is a call that needs to be discussed at length. Dunja made some wonderful points and definitely deserved more time than was given.

President Obama's Interviews

As someone who grew up in the United States, I can definitely say that very little is done to involve young adults in learning about politics. It’s not a question of access to information- it’s very easy to find what you want to learn about, if you know where to look; however the information that is readily available is, to put it simply, daunting. When turning on the news means watching well-dressed adults sit around and scream at each other like children, there is little incentive to be a part of that world. There is also little pressure from some parents and authority figures to be involved. School is about passing tests- whether you actually retain the information past a semester is of no concern, and forget about in-depth conversations of current events. Of course, you’re listening to someone who went to school in a state that currently ranks 48^th nationally in education. I have hope that other states were more proactive in involving their students in political conversations.

            I’m telling you how uninviting American politics and news outlets usually are for young people because the White House has recently broken this trend. It started when the State of the Union address was, for the first time, released early online for anyone to see. There was then collaboration with Google to bring three top YouTube vloggers to the white house for interviews with the President. This brought millions of conversations regarding both the speech and the government’s political agenda to Twitter and Facebook among other social media avenues. The 2014 State of the Union address on the White House’s YouTube channel has 521,493 views; the 2015 State of the Union has almost tripled that score with 1,552,361 views on just that one channel. President Obama isn’t avoiding major media; he is involving himself in the chosen media venue of a very large percent of the population that is often left out of political discussion. It is a demographic that needs to know what is going on, needs to be brought into the conversation in order to be aware of the world that will be passed on to them. It may be easy now for younger Millennials to stay silent on the issue of politics, but we cannot have an entire generation that regards the news and the information it reports to be a joke. This is why it is so wonderful and important that the White House has increased its online presence and made a name for itself in social media. This is a move that should have been done a while ago and, hopefully, will show younger generations that a political discussion is not a vehement screaming match.