[kitchencabinetforum] PHONE HACKING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Media moguls are often right; that's how they got to be moguls. But many
companies today operate like Russian nesting dolls, where one large figure is
actually made up of many smaller ones. These organizations present a unified
face to the outside world, but rely heavily on other, usually smaller, companies
or external individuals to conduct many of their activities. That's exactly the
Achilles Heel of media moguls!

Journalists at News of the World hired people outside the company to illegally
hack into the phones of select individuals. That these hackers seem not to be
News of the World employees illustrates the Russian nesting doll model, which
contains the seeds of moral hazard, since it allows for the plausibility of
denial. While we readily recognize such a hazard in the food and apparel
industries and the need to secure all elements of their production chain, most
other industries have yet to recognize such a hazard.

Can phone hacking ever be justified in the public interest? Marta Cooper of Index on Censorship points out the Guardian's investigations editor told the Leveson Inquiry today that in rare cases it could be. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Cooper reports that David Leigh said the one occasion he did hack the phone of a businessman was a minor incident that seemed perfectly ethical. He said, I don't hack phones, normally. I've never done anything like that since and I've never done anything like that before.

Basil Venitis points out most newsrooms of America and Europe are infested with
socialist apes, and their mindset spills over into the news coverage, producing
biased news stories on many issues, such as kleptocracy, taxes, environment,
government, insurance, and health. Infamous Greek journalists received huge
kickbacks, in order to keep their mouths shut about the astronomical kickbacks
to Graecokleptocrats! Omerta galore!

Cooper notes that referring to his admission in a 2006 article, Leigh described that the businessman in question had inadvertently left his PIN on a printout, allowing Leigh to dial straight into his voicemail. In the same article Leigh confessed to a voyeuristic thrill in hearing another person's private messages, but added that, unlike the hacking of phones of members of the royal family carried out at the News of the World by Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, his aim was to expose bribery and corruption, not witless tittle-tattle. He added, unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets.

Leigh also admitted to blagging, having telephoned Mark Thatcher, pretending to be an arms company executive to prove the pair knew each other and had entered into a business deal together. I give that as an example of when the use of subterfuge is okay, Leigh said. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Public interest, he said, was the compass for journalists, although the boundaries are unclear and judgments on whether to pursue certain stories must be made on a case-by-case basis. When asked about obtaining documents illegally, such as in the case of MPs' expenses being exposed, Leigh said he believed the overwhelming public interest meant the Telegraph was right to do what it did.

A media mogul controls his company. His company controls much of a market. He
hungers for influence in politics and society. He lusts for attention. He is
narcissistic and vane. He knows only his strengths, but not his weaknesses. He
inspires endless anecdotes about his ego. Omerta galore! Murdoch, Maxwell, and
the Hearsts, when they still managed, fit those criteria. Rupert Murdoch is the
last media mogul, a breed nesting dolls are responsible for killing in an act of
mogulcide!

Media moguls are soon to be extinct, for many reasons. Media institutions' lock
on content creation and distribution is over. The risk and cost of starting new,
large-scale media properties is too great. Control of scarcity in closed markets
led to moguls' and conglomerates' consolidation; now, in an abundant economy,
what used to be their assets are now their liabilities.

In the media business, news items require fair and secure sourcing, despite the
fact that a freelancer small doll may be crafting the story. But at the
News of the World, the people who were asked to hack the phones were apparently
hired by journalists, but were not journalists themselves. Omerta galore! This
gave them the freedom to obey norms different from those of their employers.
Needless to say, journalists are not supposed to act illegally.

There you could see Murdoch's advantage and disadvantage. He let his trusted
managers do as they pleased, but they tried to please him. That's the argument
in favor of his direct culpability in the hacking scandal. He fostered a
seat-of-the-pants culture where people didn't have to be told to go too far,
where, as he demonstrated before Parliament, the Murdochs themselves do not take
responsibility. Omerta galore! But that's over now. Murdoch has lost the
influence his newspapers gave him. He may lose control of his company. His heirs
will not take it over. The mogul is extinct. God save the Queen!

Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com