Phone Hacking Scandal.

Back in 2006 there was a scandal across the British press when the police announced that a journalist working for the Sunday Tabloid The News of the World (NOTW) was being investigated for illegally listening into the mobile phone calls and voicemail messages of members of the Royal family. Eventually the journalist was jailed for four months, the editor of the NOTW resigned and the whole story was forgotten about until July 2009 when rival newspaper the Guardian published an exclusive which revealed that the phone hacking was much more widespread then first thought with the NOTW tapping the phones of some 3000 public figures including Rebekah Wade the editor of the Sun, the NOTW's sister paper. These revelations prompted the police to launch another investigation into the matter and caused a House of Commons Select Committee to investigate the issue further not to mention the fact that it opened News International, the NOTW's parent company, up to potential lawsuits far exceeding the £1million they'd already paid out over the matter.

Personally I can't see what all the fuss is about because intercepting mobile telephone calls is such a standard investigative practice that pretty much everyone routinely does it. All the newspapers do it, private investigators do it, private companies do it to their rivals and to protests groups that may be targeting them, some of the smarter members of MP's staff do it and I know as fact that the Guardian newspaper most certainly do it. In fact there is a strong belief that the police themselves are none too keen to investigate the matter properly because such an investigation would not only reveal the police's own extensive practice of illegally intercepting mobile phone but also reveal some of the tactics they use to do so.

The practice is so widespread that I'm a bit surprised that the Guardian would want to draw so much attention to an illegal practice they're involved in. It's even more unusual because it goes against the unwritten rule of the British press that dog doesn't eat dog which is to say that despite the rivalries that exist between journalists and newspapers they do not attack each other. The Guardian is currently trying to justify breaking this rule by suggesting that because the NOTW is owned by News International they're not attacking another news paper they're merely striking blow against Rupert Murdoch, the scourge of liberals worldwide. The Guardian are also appealing to their left-wing readership by trying to dress the story up as an attack on the Conservative party because Andy Coulson, the editor of the NOTW at the time, is now the head of communications (spin doctor) for David Cameron the leader of the centre right Tories.

In reality I think that the Guardian's real motivation is much more spiteful and directed firmly against News International. I don't think I'm giving away any great secret when I say that the Guardian have been strong supporters for the Climate Camp movement and other related matters. Since the G20 protests there has been some strong and it has to be said deserved criticism of the G20 Climate Camp especially and the whole direction of the Climate Camp movement. Due to some other problems they've been having the Guardian seem to have taken this criticism as something of a personal attack and seem to be lashing out at News International who they see as being behind the criticism. Aside from the fact that this stupid, a bit childish and goes against the accepted conventions of Fleet Street it also seems to be an incredibly bad time for the Guardian to be doing it because the summer Climate Camp has been scheduled to take place in the last week of August/first week of September so you would think that the organisers of Climate Camp would be busy enough at this time without the Guardian raising the temperature by provoking a infighting amongst the media.