13 Jul 2011 | Uncategorized
This is may be an odd observation at a moment when barely credible stories about hacking are breaking by the hour, but it’s worth maintaining some level of scepticism. It is likely that some of the allegations being made at the moment will not, in time, stand up to close scrutiny. Some accepted facts in the scandal will probably be found to have no basis in evidence, and some dubious actions will turn out to have innocent explanation.
At the same time, as the criminal investigations and the public inquiry unfold over the next couple of years, new horrors will emerge. The experience of the past days, months and years leaves no room for doubt about that.
The Hacked Off campaign was founded at a time when it looked as though the truth about hacking, whatever it might be, might never be known. Rupert Murdoch’s News International was using its wealth to silence the civil litigants — the victims of hacking who were suing and had forced much of what we knew into the daylight. And lawyers were warning that any criminal prosecutions might end quickly with guilty pleas and thus without trials. I heard people close to the affair saying that it would all be over by November and we would never know any more.
Thanks to the great journalism of Nick Davies and his Guardian colleagues, that threat has evaporated and (let us give credit where it is due) thanks also to the three main party leaders, we will have a proper public inquiry. That was Hacked Off’s objective. Whether the inquiry will have exactly the right terms of reference or membership only time will tell; we did what we could to help shape the former and found the party leaders open-minded and constructive.
There is another whirlwind to come, because this inquiry and the debate which will accompany it will certainly bring big changes to British journalism. A lot of people will wish at times that the Pandora’s Box had never been opened and no doubt some will look back and rue these frenzied, disorienting days.
We will need to remember that the frenzy was the work of people who claimed to be journalists and who managed to do something so outrageous that, for at least a couple of weeks, everyone was thinking and talking about journalism and how it needed to change. And it isn’t just the hackers who are responsible but also the people who employed them and the people who indulged them — among them all those cynical journalists who make jokes about ethics.
If all goes well, what we will learn from the inquiry, over time, is something like the truth about hacking and the culture that created it. And journalists can’t really argue with the idea of learning the truth.
Brian Cathcart is founder of the Hacked Off campaign for a full inquiry into phone hacking. He teaches journalism at Kingston University and tweets at @BrianCathcart
11 Nov 2010 | Uncategorized
UPDATE: Reports are emerging that Paul Chambers appeal of his twitter conviction has been rejected
Hopefully you will have heard of the ridiculous case of the unfortunate Paul Chambers the man who now has a criminal record because of a jokey tweet made whilst frustrated with snow related delays at Doncaster Robin Hood Airport.
“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
This was the offending tweet , a clearly flippant comment whose intent, or lack thereof would have been pretty easy to establish . His case , involving intransigent heavy handedness from all concerned elicited sympathy from most rational people who are collectively crossing their fingers for his success at appeal today.
At some stage yesterday Gareth Compton , a Tory councillor for Erdington in Birmingham tweeted this :
”Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death ? I won’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”
At any level , this is a thoroughly unpleasant tweet. First of all nobody in any political position should be tweeting or indeed telling ”jokes” that are in such flagrant bad taste. Secondly I am always uncomfortable about a certain type of rightwing (and sometimes leftwing) commentator who gets disproportionately angry when the opponent whose views they disagree with happens to be from a “minority” group. The tweet leaves a nasty taste, and Gareth Compton should think long and hard about his responsibilities as a councillor. But…
It was clearly NOT an incitement to murder, in the same way that Paul Chambers was clearly NOT going to blow up Robin Hood Airport. It was a hideous misjudgement yes , but there is an obvious jokiness to the context. A remarkably unpleasant jokiness yes, but nevertheless it is there.
So I am a little bit surprised by the latest developments in which Mr Compton has been arrested and bailed for his words , supported by Yasmin Alibhai Brown who has described his tweet as an incitement to murder.
Yasmin Alibhai Brown is a journalist I have admired over the years for her ability to get under the skin of both Islamic extremists, and also those who will never accept any form of multiculturalism. But I certainly don’t agree with everything she writes or says, and I believe she is in the wrong here. Because of what she represents , every time she appears in the media she is the target of vituperative verbal attacks on her character and has been the recipient of numerous death threats. I can’t even begin to imagine what that’s like — I get upset by one bad review. But I would have thought this would have given her more insight into the difference between an actual death threat , and a boorish rightwing councilllor.
In my set I have a gag which jokily celebrates the stoning of Peter Mandelson. It is robust enough to have got big laughs on Radio 4, and in comedy clubs and arts centres up and down the country. The reason it has never once been booed is not because people actually want Mandelson to be stoned to death. The reason is that it is such a ridiculously outrageous concept that people know perfectly well I am joking. The context here is the rest of my set which is cheerfully celebratory of Britain warts and all and so any idea that I would ever advocate violence is ludicrous.
The context with Gareth Compton is that he is a Tory Councillor trying his hand at Twitter. Having read his tweets thoroughly it is clear that I don’t agree with most of his views. But nevertheless I think it is nonsense to claim that he is inciting murder.
The irony is that all over the worldwide web, anonymous internet warriors are only to happy to incite hatred and murder, and surely this is where the appropriate resources should be directed.
If you believe, as I do, that Paul Chambers is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, then you should also believe that the police have no role to play in the strange case of Alibhai Brown vs Compton. A joke, however misjudged and offensive, is still a joke. The use of the sledgehammer/walnut analogy can surely never have been more appropriate than it is when describing the use of police resources to act on a poor taste tweet. I sincerely hope that this madness does not continue as the precedent it sets is worrying indeed.
A version of this post originally appeared at sinhaha.wordpress.com
