Da West Side

I’ve known lots of journalists and media workers which is to be expected really, granted I’m a media worker. While I watch Rebekah Brooks stand before the parliamentary committee this evening, I’m reminded of how competitive the industry is and how ambitious media workers are.

It’s commonplace for instance, for media-workers to conceal the topic of the story they’re working on from close peers. Irrespective of the years of friendship shared, when it comes to discussing sources or potential investigative ideas, if you’re working in the same industry, you are generally perceived as competition. Add to this equation the dismal stats which show that since 2000, journalists – especially those under the employ of traditional print publications – have had to face ever-increasing redundancies and salary cuts (only serving to exemplify this sense of fierce competition as well as the desire to stand out from the pack) and you’re left with one extremely cut-throat industry.

When the allegations surfaced that individuals working for the now defunct British tabloid, News of the World, had engaged in phone hacking to acquire information, I spoke to many people – some media workers, some not – who expressed their disbelief that something so morally abhorrent could have taken place. I must say, I wasn’t remotely surprised and didn’t find it shocking. I’m also not remotely surprised that Rebekah Brooks, Rupert and James Murdoch have each denied knowing a single thing about it. I personally believe they are telling the truth but that to me, that is irrelevant. More on culpability later.

The act of illegally hacking into another’s mobile phone is positively deplorable. The act of hacking into the mobile phone of a victim of abduction who, is likely to be dead, is simply despicable. But it is also arguably an act of desperation, something which is clearly the product of a culture gone bad, one which has lost its way in every possible direction and as a result, knows no moral bounds – just the adrenalin of the newsroom and the satisfaction that comes from breaking a new angle on a tried and tested paper-selling story.

For over a decade now, academics and advisors have projected a relatively gloomy outlook for what somewhat incredulously is still being heralded a “new media terrain.” There’s been no shortage of seminars and conferences with names like Media 3000 and the Future of Media, which essentially all say the same thing year in, year out. Stalwart topic areas include, the different methods of media consumption and what that means in terms of different media delivery systems; the rise of citizen journalism and the blogging revolution – its impact on traditional media, the increase in op-ed and the potential for increased investment in investigative and feature writing units as a deliberate point of difference; how to monetise online without threatening readership figures etc. and of course, good old social networking and how to best make it work for you. If you’ve been to any two of these conferences, you may as well have been to twenty. The only thing that ever changes is vernacular. Each year comes with its very own buzz word and every few years or so, large media organisations rename the digital or online division of their company to reflect that fad and prove to their stakeholders that their finger is indeed firmly on the pulse. The term, “new media” for instance, is so 2001.

But while media business executives and academics have been discussing the impact of digital technology on today’s changing media landscape, reporters and journalists have continued to work. And, they’ve had to work a lot harder – often adding other media modalities like photography, editing and video to their daily duties as a so-called “Staff Writer.” These longer hours and the notable increase in job responsibilities have not resulted in higher pay however, rather today there are fewer full-time employees, more contractors and even further cuts to existing media staff as corporations try to rationalise their dwindling circulation figures. These cuts to journalist / photographer jobs are often followed by the employ of digital professionals – people hired to “strategise” new ways of using mobile, “monetise” banner ads as effectively as possible and “maximise” social networking reach – and all these jobs are in that relatively young department that was once called ‘New Media’.

None of this pressure of course justifies the use of illegal phone hacking to ascertain a new angle in any story. I’m merely attempting to illustrate how a culture can get to a point where this type of perverse methodology not only appears permissible, but perhaps even innovative.

With this in mind, when it comes to finger-pointing and the allocation of blame, does it really matter whether the individuals at the top of the food chain directly knew about the methodology that was being used to continue selling these papers? Who is responsible for creating a culture in which this type of behaviour is born?