It would be surprising if Rupert ‘Rumplechops’ Murdoch did not have a soft spot for the News of the World; after all, the old tart gave him his first big break in international newspaper publishing, which he now dominates from the offices of the Wall Street Journal – a very long way from the seedy Bouverie Street newsroom he took over back in 1969. Nevertheless, when he first made her acquaintance, buying the notorious ShagRag from under Robert Maxwell’s acquisitive hooter, she was, at least, an honest old tart, with great earning potential.
The tales of rapacious vicars, strippers at policemen’s balls and philandering politicians were more or less true. But over the last 25 years, under the evil influence of men like Stuart Kuttner, recently sacked managing editor, backed up by truth-hating hacks like Trevor Kempson, Mazher Mahmood and Neville Thurlbeck, the paper has utterly abandoned the principles expressed in its 1843 founding mission statement – “Our motto is the truth; our practice is the fearless advocacy of the truth,”  perhaps to be replaced by a quote from former news editor, Greg Miskiw: “This is what we do; we go out and destroy other people’s lives.”
Now the culture of lying and fabrication which is endemic in the newsroom is beginning to alienate a better educated public and lose sales. And it’s costing enough in damages and legal fees to make a big dent in the paper’s formerly impressive earnings.
          Tom Crone, head legal honcho at Fort Wapping must be getting nervous, sharpening his pencils and checking the emergency exits in preparation for a long campaign in the trenches. Will his new boss, Rebekah TestaRossa come and hold his sweaty hand? Or will she, along with her boss, Master James, be glad to see the back of the liability and steaming pile of ordure that the tacky little ShagRag has become?
          In the last year or so, the paper’s had a lot of big bills to pay for damages and legal fees. The Max Mosley fiasco cost them somewhere between £500k and £1m. They settled getting on for £1m with Gordon Taylor and two of his colleagues at the Professional Footballers’ Association for hacking into their voicemails. A writ from Max Clifford and Sky Andrew for more phone hacking and invasion of pivacy is hovering. In Paris a judge d’instruction is preparing a prosecution against the paper, its editor, Colin Myler, the reporter, Neville “Onan the Barbarian” Thurlbeck, and their lawyers, Farrers for publishing and sending copies of the paper containing details of Max Mosley’s private life to the FIA in Paris, which is a criminal offence in France.
          The paper is a source of a great embarrassment to James Murdoch, who must feel that the corporation which publishes the WSJ and wants to be taken seriously shouldn’t be messing about in the gutter with an organ at least as disreputable as the National Enquirer in the US.
          Kuttner has had his marching orders; Mazher Mahmood’s by-line is a rare sight these days; even Thurlbeck’s not getting the space he used to.  Following the paper’s admission that they had paid off Gordon Taylor (with a far bigger sum than Max Mosley was awarded in the High Court), the extraordinary display of dissembling put on by Crone, Myler, Kuttner and former editor Andy Coulson for the Commons Culture, Media, Sport Committee must have shoved the Screws public image even deeper into the Wapping mud.
          Don’t be surprised to see more changes; young Murdoch won’t want to live with his father’s old flame for ever.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Mariella Frostrup, writing in the Guardian today, feels that laws (bizarrely headlined ‘draconian’) proposed to protect personal privacy are a threat to public interest. The idea that papers should be required to forewarn victims of the intended publication of intimate details of their private lives was put forward by Max Mosley in his evidence to the ongoing CMS Committee Inquiry. Ms Frostrup and most other commentators on the subject are journalists who persistently show a knee-jerk aversion to any suggestion that their sacred right to reveal whatever they like should be restrained. Most readers of serious papers wouldn’t argue with the importance of wholly truthful reportage when it concerns matters of genuine public interest (a politician’s lies, a criminal’s crimes or a bishop’s hypocrisy) but Mariella Frostrup and many of her colleagues continue to ignore the fact that any breaches of privacy or transgressions of the Data Protection Act are (and would remain) clearly defensible in law on public interest grounds.

Popularity: 1% [?]

For an editor of a national newspaper – if you choose to call the Sun a newspaper when there’s a strong case for reclassifying it as a comic – Rebekah Wade has a pretty flaky idea of how the law works. She told the Guardian today:

The point of concern is there is just one man making the law by setting a precedent sitting on his own. In a democracy that cannot be good for society. The point of having one solitary judge who is unelected and unaccountable who is setting a precedent in British law … I think a lot of people will be surprised that he sat alone in the Max Mosley case because there’s no jury in privacy cases.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Max Mosley is pursuing several libel actions around Europe against publications who were careless enough to repeat the News of the World’s allegations that he had engaged five dominatrices for a Nazi style orgy – now believed by most of us in court to have been, beyond doubt, invented by Screws hack, Neville “Onan the Barbarian” Thurlbeck.

Mosley has suggested that he might use some of the proceeds of these libel actions (and it’s likely he’ll win several of them) to set up a fund so that those less rich than he could also pursue the Wapping lie-factory next time they transgress.

Popularity: 2% [?]

It’s surprising to see the Telegraph running to the support of the News of the World. To non-journalists, this brotherhood among those who write for the nation’s newspapers is puzzling. The DT and the NoW, on the face of it, have such different motives in their investigation of individuals’ private lives.

The aim of the News of the World is to fill its pages with prurient tattle about rich and influential people, whether businessmen or movie stars.

Popularity: 1% [?]