Now That's What I Call Leveson

The news of the past few days has looked like a collection of the 'Best Bits' from the past 18 months. We've had the classic hits of Hugh Grant ruthlessly seeking vengeance on News Corp and The Mirror. Kate and Gerry McCann have made a long awaited comeback to point the stick at Mr Investigative Journalism for being accused by British Media of murdering their child Madeline. The one hit wonder of Christopher Jefferies who won libel damages for his wrongful arrest in the case of Jo Yeates' murder, has come back, looking better than ever (presumably spending his cash). Even political hits have been replayed such as in-depth discussion about Jeremy Hunt's involvement in the BSkyB and whether the coalition is set to burst.

The Wily Mr Murdoch's

The end of 2011 is approaching, and this year's Formula 1 seasons has come to a close, after a great year of motor sporting action, with some brilliant races which will be remembered for years, and records which will take many years to eventually be broken. In the United Kingdom, we have been able to watch all this on the BBC, which has provided a great deal of in-depth analysis which has informed and, more importantly, entertained. I'm sure the next season will produce the same great quality sport. However, no longer will the BBC be showing the footage of sport in the same way they have for the past two years. And why? Sky!

Sky have come along and pounced on the healthy chicken, and dragging it back to their den with their teeth firmly gripping hold of the neck, just like a fox might. They are stealing the entire healthy crop that every other channel has. Another example of it happening this year is Glee.

Channel Four took the chance and aired the first two series. No-one knew whether or not it would transfer well to a British audience. Channel Four hand-reared this little foreign chick, until it became a hit, with a large fan base of people who listen to the terrible music. Then, just when it was at its healthiest, Sky came leaping in with their multi-millions, and ran off with the high-pitched chicken shrieking out a Britney hit.

That is what Sky does; they let other channels take the risk with a new show, and then when it becomes popular, they take it and add to their collection of hits. The sneaky bastards.

Now, I have no real issue with Sky taking Glee. In fact, they have done me a favour. My girlfriend watched it in the days when Channel 4 had it, but due to us not having Sky, and me never being likely to have it, she can no longer watch it, meaning I am saved from having to listen to crap actors sing crap songs with crap voices. However, I DO have an issue with them spearheading Formula 1 away from the BBC.

I have never really had a passion for a sport before, but I do have an enormous desire to wake up at 5:30am on a Sunday morning to sit in bed for four hours to watch the race, as well as all the coverage before and after the race. It is an experience which, in the two years the BBC has had it, has made it a real personable show. It is a show which you feel a part of. It is an experience which is better than actually being at the race. At the race, you can't go and listen to every race driver talk profoundly in a friendly manner about their emotions at winning a race.

The F1 Forum, which always followed the race on the Red Button, gave this us, the audience; the chance to see a sportsman express human emotion up close, which was something to have not been done before. The BBC also go and interview people at the races, such as mechanics who has take a break from rushing to get the car ready for the race, to talk to nosey film crew. The presenting team go and mingle with the public, especially at the British Grand Prix, and then you also get interviews with celebrities such as Sir Paul McCartney and Rowan Atkinson.

And now, because of Sky (although not entirely their fault; we can also blame the Government for not raising the TV License, meaning the BBC had no extra money to afford both BBC 4 and the F1. I mean, why could they not sacrifice BBC 3 instead?), that coverage has been sacrificed. The BBC still have coverage, but it is very limited. From 2012, they will only be showing half of the races live, with the others being limited to just two hours of highlights.  And Sky? They're creating a whole channel, because they have money to piss away on everything.

Sky has also stolen a considerable amount of the BBC presenting team. So, not only have Sky stolen another program which a channel has worked hard on to make a success, but they have also stolen their talent. Why? Because they're greedy, but they're also lazy. Essentially, they take the credit for the hard work done by other people.

In case you were not aware, News Corporation own part of Sky, with their bid to take complete control being blocked earlier this year after the News of the World scandal.

Not a great year for the Murdoch's overall. But then, hey, feel no sympathy for them. I mean, they APPARENTLY never read emails to them which informed them of the illegal methods that their journalists used to get stories. If that's true, they're incompetent idiots. If it's false, then they're bastard liars who will go to any mean who protect their sun-warped faces. Neither option is great, but I think we can all agree that the latter is probably the true option.

P.S. Think about it: Are Sky going to produce clips such as these?

Guardian Debate: How Can The Press Restore Trust

"Once we lose reporters, we're fucked!"

Unless you have spent the past few months on a cloud numbered nine, been in a submarine or in a coma, you will be fully aware of the phone hacking scandal of July 2011 at News of The World. It shocked and horrified our nation, as well as confusing us about whether to sympathise or hate the frail or conniving Rupert Murdoch. Since then, in fact long before then, the public have lost the trust they once invested in Journalism. Journalists are now probably somewhere just above lawyers and estate agents. On this very topic, The Guardian organised a small, public debate; a post hacking debate in which they were discussing ways in which the press can restore the trust.

This Guardian event happened on the 29th September 2011 at The Royal Institute of Great Britain, situated in one the poshest roads in one of the poshest areas of London. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to attend this event for free. After a trip through London at rush hour on the Underground, a trip which involved a shoulder in the eye and a tube door shutting on my head, I attended the event, looking rather underdressed in my jeans and check shirt. I then sat in a small theatre with inadequate leg room for someone of the slightly above average male-height of 6 foot. I was now sat in a room filled with Journalists, Investigative Journalists and other, media-savvy people. This was a great place to be sat in the middle of for a Student Journalist.

The room filled and then the five established names took to their seats before a short introductory video began. It started with the clip from Fox News during the height of the scandal, in which the news anchor, interviewing Rupert Murdoch, was being told what not to ask by his interviewee before apologising in a cringe-worthy manner. Following that, there was a talking head video of various figures from The Guardian, discussing the course of events including numerous other clips, such as the embarrassing one of Murdoch saying it ‘was the most humble day of my life' to the MPs.

The line-up for this debate consisted of Kristian Guru Murphy, who chaired the event. We had Carl Bernstein, an American investigative journalist who largely reported the Watergate politics scandal for The Washington Post back in 1972 in America. Sylvie Kauffman was next to him, who is the current editor for Le Monde in France. George Eustice is a Conservative politician who has had some large roles in the party, including Press Secretary for David Cameron, who was later succeeded by Andy Coulson: who is a man largely wrapped up in this whole scandal. Alan Rusbridger was also proudly present, and he is the editor for The Guardian. He started off the debate by taking to the stand to give an opening statement.

Guru Murphy then asked the others to give an opening statement to this debate. Carl Bernstein stated that 'Hackgate' was only as a result of the consumer’s wants and needs, but agreed that the press abused their rights to freedom of speech and expression. George Eustice then agreed about the 'using and abusing', but also stated that Journalists would regularly distort the news out of malice. He then went on to knock plans to have a 'Journalists Register' (the equivalent to a sex offenders registers), which would strike off Journalists who break the law.

Sylvie Kauffmann then gave her statement, in which compared our press to that of the French. She said they have no tabloid press, which is the result of a cultural difference and the public having no appetite for those kinds of stories. She actually noted an opposite scandal in France, in which Special Intelligence spy on reporters. This was completely rejected by a French audience member, who stated that Journalists in France undertake the same methods as the British. Alan Rusbridger claimed that the scandal is a result of a PCC failure. He argued that increased regulation could endanger the freedom of the press and a Journalist Register would go back to 1694, when Journalists could be heavily punished for libels.

After an opinionated reaction from Bernstein, who seemed to completely disagree with what Rusbridger had just said, the debate was opened up to questions from the audience. The questions tackled the accumulation of power for News Corporation, in which Rusbridger stated that MPs are trying to stop it, such as the BSkyB bid; albeit last minute, and Kauffmann said the answer is simply more regulation.

Other subjects questioned included tabloids, such as it being impossible to compare tabloid and broadsheet press due to them having a hunger for different stories, and also questioning the limits of privacy. Bernstein answered these questions in saying that responsibility needs to be taken by the corporations, and also that they need to be transparent in their methods and how money is being spent. Bernstein also answered a question about the limits of investigative journalism, in which he thought that the law should not be broken to get a story, but it can still be justified on occasion. He then continued saying that the Watergate investigation was legal and that he would have never hacked phones.

Before the participants gave their closing statements, Kristian Guru Murphy took a poll regarding regulation. Not many people agreed that the answer was more regulation or that we currently have the right level of regulation. Interestingly, a third agreed the answer was less regulation; the same amount of people in the room who were also Journalists.

Bernstein thought that the way to restore trust, something all institutions have lost, is basically through good reporting. Kauffmann said there is no simple answer to restoring trust and that the public needed to decide the media they want. She also said that Journalists, Blogger's and Twitterer's should have the same ethics. On the issue of trust, Eustice stated that in Britain, we have the most trusted broadcasters but the least trusted newspapers, and that this was an issue. Rusbridger thought that regulation, so long as it was effective, was the answer, as well as transparency and the want for organisations to correct themselves too. The debate ended with Rusbridger's final words being "Once we lose reporters, we're fucked!"

So the conclusion? Well, there didn't seem to be a conclusive one. There are many different opinions in which way to restore trust. I think we are just going to have to wait for the results from Lord Leveson's Inquiry next year before really being able to answer the question.

Why Would Anyone Want To Ever Be A Journalist?

Journalists are complete and utter bastards, I think we can all agree on that. Recent allegations against Journalists, Editors and Newspaper 'brands' make them all come across as heartless bastards with no morals, no guilt and only have a taste for money, and whether it interrupts with some small murder inquiry, well who cares; you could earn up to £100,000 if your fantastic story hits the front page of the News Of The World. Stupid, selfish bastards, that's what Journalists are. Only an idiot would spend three years and get into £21,000 debt so they can become one… Oh, right, yeah. Idiots like me. Want to see what idiot looks like? Come around my house and ask for Stuart. You can punch me if you like (Please don't punch me).

I am utterly disgusted. One could kid themselves that they'll change the face of Journalism, but reality is, I will be nothing but a speck of a dust when it comes to a list of all the Journalists. I'll make no difference what so ever. The last few days, I've begun to reconsider my life plans. Why would anyone willingly become associated with those selfish, incompetent, money sucking, bastard scumbags? That's not to say that these allegations have tainted what it means to be a Journalist; that happened many years ago, but this just highlights how awful those people are. Bastards!

This blog has been written slowly over a course of 10 days (however, it won't seem like it when you read it), and not because I couldn't be bothered to do it, just because this story has moved so quickly, it would just mean that paragraphs of writing would be benign before I even finished the blog, let alone published it.

Anyway, so this story has been going on for years (since 2003 I do believe), with it slowly coming out that politicians like John Prescott and Boris Johnson, as well as celebrities like Hugh Grant and Gwyneth Paltrow, had their phones hacked, and they got a bit angry, and small debates started on Newsnight and Question Time, The Guardian got uppity and the story went away, after a Police Investigation which (now, rather ironically) said that nothing illegal had occurred. Then July 2011 happened and now, within a week, the face of the media has altered drastically and Journalists are hated more than a love child between Katy Price and Piers Morgan would be.

What has all the recent fuss actually been about I hear the ignorant population trying to speculate. Well, essentially, some Journalists have lost sight of what it means to be a Journalist. I have always thought the news was to explain in a clear, unbiased way, the recent events that have been happening locally and World-wide. When Murdoch came to our shores and brought with him his ruthlessness that seemed to change. Now Journalists seek out news stories that they think will help grab that coveted front page headline (Worth up to £100,000 remember), and therefore sell more papers. 'Investigative Reporting' this is called. They will go to any means to find out a dirty secret about someone in the media spotlight, because APPARENTLY, that's what the public want. No, I don't care that someone I've heard of has slept with a hooker. I don't think a majority of the public DO want that. I think they want to be informed in an intelligent, non-patronising manner, about the current news to gain a better understanding of life on our planet.

It came out nearly two weeks ago now that investigative reporting went to the dirty lows where no morals exist and tampered with a murder inquiry just so they could have more people crying for longer to drag a story out. Milly Dowler is the first example we're told of. In 2002, she was abducted before being murdered. However, despite being murdered, she still managed to delete voice messages. As you can see, before they found her body (which took 6 months, a heck of a long and excruciating time for her family you understand), they thought she was alive and listening to her messages. That gave her family and friends false hope. That is despicable. Who could do such a thing? Well, a News Of The World journalist of course. That 'journalist' had hacked the phone of Milly Dowler and was listening to the heartbreaking messages from her loved ones on her phone. And when her voice mail become full, he deleted messages so that more people could leave heartbreaking messages for him to carry on listening to and continue to drag out the story. Yeah, I think if hell exists, there is a place reserved for him down there.

This was what led to this phone hacking scandal to go nuclear, and it then came out that all high profile child murder enquiries would have to be reopened due to it being possible that journalists from the News Of The World had done the same thing.

Then more and more despicable and shameful storied leaked out of the Guardian and the BBC, day after day about the News Of The World hacking peoples phones and bribing policemen. It was revealed that the mobile phones of the victims and the families of the London terrorist attacks (or 7/7 as the media refer to it as), have been hacked, again to listen to all the heartbreaking, upsetting messages that concerned people would have left for them. It was revealed that maybe even the victims from the New York terrorists attack (9/11 as the media refer to it as) had been hacked and now that's being investigated by the FBI. It came out that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan have been hacked.  It came out that Gordon Brown had his personal information hacked and The Sun wanted to reveal the news that his son has cystic fibrosis. It was suggested that a private investigator gave personal details of the senior royal family for £1000 a time. It was also, very worryingly, revealed that some reporters paid members of the Metropolitan police to gain these personal numbers and details which led to some of these hackings in the first place. All very hard hitting, shocking stuff.

And after all that news came out, News Of The World closed and will never print again. However, give it a few months and a new paper will take its place, don't worry. Andy Coulson, who was once editor, was arrested, but that's where this story became a witch hunt. Rebekah Brooks wasn't arrested, she wasn't even sacked. Sure, 11 days later, she resigned, but she's still not been arrested. 200 people lost their jobs when News Of The World closed, and for the most part, despite the reputation of the paper, it had some of the best journalists in the country; World even. Very talented, innocent people. Only a few hacked, not all of them. Is it fair they lost their jobs? Not in the slightest. I will give you some figures though: The newspaper printed 2.5 million copies every Sunday. On the final Sunday, they printed under 5 million copies. The front page boasted '7.5 million loyal readers'. They're great journalists, but mathematicians they're not...

So why should you not feel sorry for Rebekah Brooks? Well, let me just remind you that she was arrested in 2005 for, allegedly, domestically abusing her then husband, which was Ross Kemp: TV's hardman! 200 people lost their jobs to try and save her job, and look where that ended. The most disgusting thing about her (second to that hair of her's) is how much of a lying bitch she is. She honestly expects people to believe that she knew nothing about any of this hacking lark. She never questioned any of these secret stories and there source? That means she either lied, in which case she should have been sacked, OR she was an idiotic, incompetent editor who was completely ignorant to everything that happened when she was in charge; in which case she should have been sacked. However, that would never have happened because the political hypocrites wouldn't have liked that. Gordon Brown and David Cameron went to her wedding; how can they possibly take the moral high ground on this? They didn't want her sacked, they wanted her to resign; meaning she still gets a huge pension and other perks, which is wrong. BURN HER; SHE'S A WITCH! I heard someone say we shouldn't harass her as it's not very nice. How bloody ironic!? Some really middle-class idiots phone up Radio 2 y'know. I think we should continue to harass her for a taste of her own medicine if she doesn't get arrested, and it should become legal to intrude on the privacy of her life. I think we should arrest Piers Morgan too. He wasn't editor when the hacking happened, but we should just arrest for once being editor of News Of The World, The Sun and The Daily Mail.

This all came at a very poignant time for the media industry. News Corporation, for some time now, has been trying to buy the complete rights to BSkyB. They already own a percentage, but they wanted more. This is something I and 160,000 other people where against and signed an online petition to stop this happening. You only have to look at America and the Fox network to know that this isn't the way we want our country to end up. This scandal and its tainting on the reputation of News International, along with widespread anger at this deal, led to Rupert Murdoch pulling out his bid. Huzzah! Come on everyone; let's have a party to celebrate the power of public outcry! Woo hoo!

All in all, these have been the worst two weeks that News Corporation has ever had. They've had their reputation ruined both sides of the Atlantic. I mean, we all know how patriotic the American's are and how protective they are of anything to do with 9/11. If victims’ families have been hacked, the American's will want blood. They have lost their biggest selling newspaper. Murdoch has lost his chances of owning BSkyB anytime soon. Rebekah Brooks has gone. And, now they're being investigated which will undoubtedly end with the Murdoch's paying huge sums in damages to everyone. They may as well just send everyone in Britain a cheque for £500 and be done with it. I hope heads roll for all this, I really do.

The only way it could get worse for the Journalism industry is if it were revealed that it's their fault Princess Diana died in that French tunnel because they were too busy, photographing the scene and trying to grab the headline first, to actually help her… WHAT!?

P.S. I would love to write so much more and express my opinions, so maybe I’ll do a second blog soon on the subject. Watch this blogspot…