JohnJohnSaidIt.com

After feeling like he was in the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies, the pie on Rupert Murdoch’s face makes me hopeful that the ending to this saga will be Disney-like: the bad guy gets humiliated and the country returns to good democracy.Unfortunately, my fairytale dream is not real. The scandal continues to reveal more and more unethical, selfish and hyena-like behaviour from the bigwigs. although the whole affair started more than five years ago (or we could say it all started when the media mogul decided to rule the world through his media monopoly) the scandal become a topic of household discussion on July 4, when it came to light that the News of the World had hacked the mobile phone of a murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler. some people said Murdoch’s empire crumbled from a curse from the grave. Curse or no curse, the revelation opened a Pandora’s box. something the public doesn’t seem to care about — how tabloids acquire their gossip stories — became a subject of heated debate. The ethics of the media, and then later the ethics of police, business owners and politicians were suddenly being questioned and scrutinized. one tragic event amid the whole scandal was almost forgotten: the death of Sean Hoare, the whistle-blower who came forward in a BBC program stating that Andy Coulson, the former chief editor of the News of the World, was aware of the phone hacking conducted by his staff. The whole controversy makes me think and rethink of the profession that I take pride in: journalism.I find it amusing to see Murdoch has suddenly become one big “enemy” that unites British politicians. Even those who were regular guests to Murdoch’s parties are now jumping on the bandwagon and pointing fingers at fellow politicians and police officers, but denying any of their own involvement. I feel the need to analyze the many facets of this scandal. first and foremost: media ethics. I agree that journalism means gathering information to tell the story to the public. yes the definition of the media does not limit the examples to The Guardian, Independent, BBC and ITN. but do the tabloids follow the same ethics as the broad papers? what is the purpose of publishing a story? is it solely to increase subscription and advertising revenue? Or is it to inform and educate the public about events, people and decisions that affect their lives? in my old-school opinion, it should be the latter. I believe the media should be a balancing power in democratic nation-states. when the media becomes the power, something is not right. furthermore, when one company owns the majority of the media in one country and then gets very intimate with the politicians in power and the law enforcement of the same country, its power becomes entangled and corrupt. Today, we see that the power of the economy, the power of the politicians running the country and the power of the law enforcement forces have been somehow merged into one monster with absolute superpower. but this monster could crumble when the public demands transparency. The second facet is the police ethics. although I am no expert in police matters, as a member of the public I expect people who consider themselves part of the law enforcement to stick to the definition of the term: enforcing the law, abiding by the law, being just, and drawing a line between right and wrong. Why would a policeman accept a dinner invitation from people he is investigating? Corrupt police are not a new concept, but selling confidential information to tabloids? The third facet of the scandal is the definition of “public interest”. in a broader sense, the debate comes to what is public and what is private; and what the law says about privacy vs. public interest. is investigating (including hacking the phone of) a politician who might be corrupt considered the same as digging into (and hacking the phone of) a celebrity who may be having an extramarital affair? furthermore, is intercepting the voicemail of a teenage girl who is missing (and more likely dead) part of serving the public interest? on the first day of my investigative reporting course many years ago, we watched the movie All the President’s Men. in the discussion afterward, the term digging in the mud was scrutinized. The most important part was not the act itself, but what drove Woodward and Bernstein to dig the mud. The term “public interest” came up. but what is public interest? Oxford University published a paper in 2009 stating the characteristics of public interest, such as “Citizens in a democracy have an interest in having access to information about the workings of government, its institutions and its officials, both elected and appointed. This interest also extends to private corporations and voluntary organizations that require public’s trust.” it then continues to the next point, “Individuals holding such office in a public or private institution that seeks the public’s trust should be judged for their public acts, not private ones. ‘Private’ should mean issues to do with personal relations, personal communications, beliefs and past affiliations – always assuming these are within the law – however much these appear to others to be deviant, or immoral, or bizarre.”Although not so much mentioned in the Prime Minister’s question time on Wednesday, the fourth facet of this scandal takes us to the vicious circle of the yellow tabloids. Are the gossip papers sold well because the public loves gossip? Or is the public’s taste for gossip and voyeurism “trained” by the high exposure of cheap gossip tabloids? which causes which and how can we stop this vicious circle? after all, democracy means freedom of expression and everyone has the right to buy any type of media they like. last but not least: the fifth facet is the ever-growing power of multinational corporations over the sovereignty of the nation-state. Initiated as a balancing power in a democratic country, the media (or the owner and capital behind the media) has become a new form of tyranny. The power of the media is now dictating the way the politicians govern this democratic country. in News of the World case, it was the power of scandal over the power of democracy. in the era of gossip, scandal and voyeurism, transparency and honesty are facing extinction.in democratic societies, journalism is born out of and should continue to be directed by the act of balancing powers. The media should be one of the pillars of democracy. Unverified gossip is not news, scandal is no entertainment and voyeurism is not information.as a journalist as well as a reader and member of the public, I try to keep a Zen wisdom that asks three questions before accepting any information. one, is it true? Two, is it useful? and three, is it good?The writer is a freelance journalist and alumni of Driyarkara Institute of Philosophy, Jakarta. She lives in Manchester, UK