www.ditl.org

"Mobile phones owned by relatives of UK soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan may have been hacked by the News of the World, it is being reported."

as well as

"Families of 7/7 bombing victims may have had their phones hacked by the News of the World, it has emerged."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14040841

And such has been the outcry that they've shut the paper down permanently as of today, after 168 years in print.

Everyone is saying that it's an attempt to defuse the situation; the editor is still in her job whilst the staff are maybe keeping theirs, or maybe not - that little fact caused a "lynch mentality" when it was announced, so the news was saying.

It's also been said by one guy that Murdoch has been saying for a while that he wants to amalgamate some of his papers and just took this as a way to look like he's done something positive and then will extend one of the other papers he owns to 7 days a week.

Colour me unimpressed that a bunch of hackers get shut down for getting caught so the paper that published "The Truth" gets extended to seven days.

I don't know the details, but the picture they were painting on the news earlier was along the lines that the editor was the guilty one and they've punished everyone else to look like they're doing something whilst covering her ass.

They really need to get the whole lot of them on a stand under oath and get to the bottom of it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:They really need to get the whole lot of them on a stand under oath

The point of which would be what, exactly?

I feel sorry for the staff losing their job, many of whom weren't even working there when this was going on. Meanwhile Rebecca Brooks gets to keep hers.

What irks me is that members of the Police new this was happening at the time and didn't think it was that big a deal.

What is unforgivable though is hacking the voicemail of Millie Dowler whilst the search for her was still on going. Moreover, messages were deliberately deleted when the mailbox were full in order to make room for new ones. This interfered with the investigation, gave the family false hope that she was still alive, and if its proved the Police new about it, it could potentially make her killers conviction unsafe.

Am currently watching Milliband get a well deserved grilling in a tv interview about cosying up to Rupert Murdoch, and not raising the issue of phone hacking with him at a recent party, only for Milliband to try and score political points on the issue now.

I only hope the closure of News of the World isn't the end it.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:They really need to get the whole lot of them on a stand under oath

The point of which would be what, exactly?

Um, how about the fact that one of their victims was a serving government Minister? I'm no lawyer but even if it's no big deal to hack into a normal person's phone, hacking into his communications may well be a pretty serious crime.

There's lots of talk of a government inquiry regarding the whole issue of the press and privacy. Some versions of that can compel witnesses and put them under oath, I believe.

Not to mention that the stuff kostmayer is describing surely seem like they go well into illegal territory.

And what effect to you seriously expect that to have? A lying little shit is a lying little shit, regardless of the circumstances of their lies. Questioning them and expecting anything even remotely resembling honesty is a waste of time, and doing so as part of an inquiry is a waste of public money to boot.

Captain Seafort wrote:Questioning them and expecting anything even remotely resembling honesty is a waste of time, and doing so as part of an inquiry is a waste of public money to boot.

Would you prefer that these crimes go uninvestigated?

I'd rather we locked the bastards up. My point is that any process whatsoever that is in any way reliant on a journalist not lying through their teeth is a complete waste of time and money.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'd rather we locked the bastards up. My point is that any process whatsoever that is in any way reliant on a journalist not lying through their teeth is a complete waste of time and money.

Now before I go misunderstanding, am I to take your statement to be a blanket judgement of all journalists?

Absolutely. They're like politicians - capable of telling truths only when it suits (or at least does not harm) their ends, in this case selling newspapers.

Captain Seafort wrote:Absolutely. They're like politicians - capable of telling truths only when it suits their ends, in this case selling newspapers.

Bullshit. From what information are you drawing your conclusions? My father worked as a reporter most of his life. You want to know what causes a slant in writing? It is not the reporters. Most reporters actually do want to tell the story as best they can, factually. Many agree that a news story should be impartial, reporting the news but not making it. If you want opinions, read the columnist or the letters to the editor. If you are finding a particular slant in a publication, it is often the fault of the management and the editors not the actual staffers. Are there some reporters who write slanted one way or another without the management asking them to? Yes. But you of all people, with all the debating arguing you do on this site, should know the dangers of making a sweeping generalization.

You want to say "some journalists are lying scum" or name specific journalists who are guilty of bias in their reporting, OK. It does happen. But it is nowhere near the rule you seem to assume it to be. It does happen yes, but those are not good journalists, violating the very spirit of their occupation.

Sonic Glitch wrote:You want to know what causes a slant in writing? It is not the reporters. Most reporters actually do want to tell the story as best they can, factually. Many agree that a news story should be impartial, reporting the news but not making it. If you want opinions, read the columnist or the letters to the editor. If you are finding a particular slant in a publication, it is often the fault of the management and the editors not the actual staffers.

A slant is inevitable in any newspaper article - it's inherent in their nature, because they do not exist simply to inform but to entice and to influence. A newspaper that does not draw in new readers goes out of business, and therefore it's in their interests to pander to the political views of a sufficiently large group to sustain their business. This applies to the lot - from the owner to the lowest reporter, because if the paper doesn't get sold, they're out of a job. They might achieve this through publishing outright lies that they know to be lies, or they might simply omit or gloss over facts that contradict their point of view, but they all do it. I'm not interested in what they believe in or what they want to do - I'm interested in what they actually do.

Captain Seafort wrote:And what effect to you seriously expect that to have? A lying little shit is a lying little shit, regardless of the circumstances of their lies. Questioning them and expecting anything even remotely resembling honesty is a waste of time, and doing so as part of an inquiry is a waste of public money to boot.

An excellent argument to stop enforcing most laws. Except that it's not.

There's all kinds of things you can do to uncover lies. Many people, especially people who have a lot to lose, refuse to answer rather than lie - and will buckle and tell the truth when they are in a position where refusing or lying has nasty consequences.

And for that matter, there's a newsroom full of journalists who may or may not know all sorts of things about the bosses, and now have a serious grudge.