News of the World to close

The fact is David though that nearly every single employee who lost their jobs were not involved in this vile phone-hacking. They are the ones paying the price for what the people who have gone before them did. The one remaining person involved with NOTW who is implicated in phone hacking Rebekah Brooks is the only one not losing her job. That hardly seems fair.

I think I profoundly disagree with you on both points.

Whilst I may not particularly like the NotW style of journalism, I do believe in freedom of the press, and I believe the public have a right to chose what newspapers they buy. If the NotW journalists work within the law (and it has been widely reported that post-Coulson the paper is as 'clean' as tabloids come) and produce a paper that is popular and still lose their jobs, then I do feel some sorrow for them, as I would for any employees made redundant through no direct fault of their iwn. I feel far less sorrow for celebrities who are happy to trade on their popularity to earn millions, and are then caught out doing something dishonest that will tarnish their popularity. On the other hand I know most tabloid papers - not just the NotW - can trample on the 'little people' at times - which is why I don't buy them.

Rebekah Brooks was editor of the NotW when the Millie Dowler phone hacking scandal took place. She appears to have, conveniently, been on holiday at the time. She appears to have come up the ranks writing features rather than news stories, so may well have not had first hand experience of how the news desks obtained their stories. Ignorance is no defence. The Editor is the editor, they have a duty to their readers and a responsibility for their content. End of.

If the editor of a TV or Radio programme had been involved in similar ways of working, the red tops (and broadsheets) would have been baying for blood. Any editor of a news programme and any lawyer at a news broadcaster would demand to know how a story is 'stood up' before running it.

Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies both resigned over the 'Dodgy Dossier' Today programme broadcast. Peter Fincham resigned over a non-broadcast taster-tape being edited out of order (this wasn't even a broadcast...) and the Editor of Blue Peter resigned over a breach of trust in the naming of the Blue Peter cat... Compared to the NotW the BBC stuff now pales doesn't it?

To put it another way. If Peter Fincham had gone on to be Director General, and the Queengate issue had arisen, the actions of News International are currently are like axeing BBC One, but letting Fincham still be DG.

Yet Rebekah Brooks is still supported by Murdoch. One does wonder what affords her such protection from Rupert. Reports suggest she's like a daughter to him - but even so...

Also - what's interesting in the discussion of plurality, ignoring 'fit and proper', is that it has become clear that both Labour and the Tories were (and the Tories still are) in thrall to the Murdoch press, and courted their support. No - this is not a surprise. We all knew it. It's interesting that people like Harriet Harman (Deputy Leader of Labour) are admitting it.

Yes - the free press is there as a check and balance for government in a civilised democracy. That doesn't mean that a single proprietor (Rupert Murdoch) should, because of his ownership of a large number of popular news papers, be able to control public opinion, and thus government... The thought of him owning Sky (not controlling it - he does that already) in the current climate is surely unthinkable (though may be perfectly legal).

Successive governments have been making decisions based not on what is right, but on what Murdoch (who is neither a UK resident or citizen) likes or doesn't like... Finally they're admitting this. Let's hope the closure of the NotW is not the end of this story.

Sky News have been allowed to film inside the NOTW today - presumably because of their links to News Corp - and have had much better coverage of the closure than the BBC, in my opinion.

Yep - presumably in NI and NC's interests to make the closure of the NOTW as big as possible to try and draw a line under the business. Not sure that's going to work.

(Not saying Sky News are complicit in this, but if NI only allowed Sky in...)

Although I have some sympathy with the innocent individuals losing their jobs, anyone who takes the Murdoch dollar deserves everything they get. Anyone who thinks the "new" NOTW is somehow any different / of a higher moral standard to how it was under Brooks and Coulson is deluded frankly. They have been allowed to get away with too much for too long. And lest not forget, 2.5million readers fuelled their heinous actions. Only a small part of the NOTW was responsible for hacking. The other lot were pushing telephoto lenses through letterboxes and hiding in bushes and calling celebrities fat and criticising sportspeople and bigging up a fairly average England football team only to smash them ruthlessly after they lose.

I won't mourn the passing of the current NOTW. Only ever bought one or two copies in my life - first one as part of my degree for research purposes, second time to get the £9.50 holiday token.

And besides, any action that puts Carole Malone out onto the street is good in my book.

1984.



This is a joke, right?
Please say this inane comment of yours is a joke. In bad taste, but one nevertheless?
Please.

As to the wrapping of News Of The World, it was a great surprise to learn that the paper was to close in the first place, although I'm a bit sceptical that Rebekah Brookes claims to know nothing about any of it. Something doesn't quite wash and I have this abject feeling that this is simply the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

I always say -- if people deny something that happened "on their watch" so to speak, they can't have been very good at what they were doing, can they? If Brooks or her subs, who report to her, (no pun intended) didn't know what source their stories were coming from, what kind of half-assed editrix was she?

Everything on this page is so true. What the hell has Brooks got to hide? If anyone deserved the sack, it was her.

Surprised no one has referred to this debate on Newsnight:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV9Sh_R3wB4

And if they're as good journalists as News International are trying to tell us, then they'll have no problem getting another job.

They'll be allright.... I read somewhere the unemployed get 5 bedroom houses and £50 000 a year in benefits.