Murdoch’s Eavesdropping Scandal Harms Power of Media Empire
The eavesdropping scandal is fermenting in the U.K., in the U.S. and even in media around the world, and the credibility of Murdoch’s news empire has been seriously attacked. The British version of the “Watergate” scandal not only ruined News of the World, but also struck a deadly blow to the reputation and speech power of Murdoch’s media empire.
The scandal is particularly noticeable because of its involvement in politics. The British prime minister was the first to be affected. Since his former right-hand man, Andy Coulson, was the chief editor at News of the World and was suspected of eavesdropping, Cameron was very embarrassed. What he can do is distance himself from this as soon as possible. What depressed Murdoch more is that the U.S. Congress and the U.K. Parliament said consecutively that they would get involved in the scandal, which made the whole situation even more complicated, especially because the superior social capacity and powerful voice of the U.S. Congress cannot be underestimated by Murdoch.
The scandal also revealed the dirty deeds of some British tabloids to the public. The Guardian said that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown had been watched by tabloids for more than 10 years and that The Sunday Times under Murdoch used fraudulent means to break into his bank account information and legal documents, and even broke into the computer of Brown’s auditor, acquiring his financial data. What a case of collapse and disappear. Behind the series of exposure and disgraceful deeds is the great neglect and loss of credibility of Murdoch’s media empire.
Unscrupulously chasing and even making up news [shows] the distastefulness of News of the World. In this respect, the longevity of The New York Times is a good example. In pursuit of authenticity, The New York Times took the prudent path — sometimes reporting slower or more concisely than others, but never speaking randomly. To some extent, sometimes speaking less means maintaining a powerful voice. Moreover, calmness and rationality is the motto for people at The New York Times.
In fact, as a renowned reporter and former editor of the Times stated, the most important selling point of a newspaper is its reputation. If a newspaper has no reputation, then it may as well be closed. After all, a newspaper relies on trust to survive. If there’s no trust, journalism cannot exist.
The lack of self-discipline is key to the loss of the powerful voice of Murdoch’s media. In the U.S. and the U.K.’s mainstream media, self-discipline is everywhere. In some relatively famous and long-lived media, the advertising department and newsroom are often on different floors; for example, the newsroom is on the second floor, and the advertising department is on the fourth floor. Even then, when people in the two departments meet in the elevator, they seldom speak to each other, to save themselves from suspicion. This is a kind of “firewall” setting, after media entered the advertising era.
In order to avoid the commercial atmosphere brought by advertising that may anesthetize the media nerve and pollute freedom of the press, America’s mainstream media not only forbids journalists from being involved in advertising, but also deliberately builds inner walls between the newsroom and the operations department; such walls have been standing there since the first wall was built in the early ‘20s. Unfortunately, Murdoch, though having been in America’s media for a long time, still seems to have no sense of the importance of the “inner wall.”
The management philosophy also makes a difference in the power of speech. In the summary of the failure of Murdoch’s MySpace, the philosophy of [putting] advertising first instead of the audience is seen as a big problem. In sharp contrast to this, supported by the philosophy of audience first, The New York Times has long been supported by the spirit of providing rich content. The NYT Company defines itself fundamentally as a content provider, which is to offer the audience high-quality news through every channel. Such concept is non-existent in News of the World, since the interest of the audience is what they harm most of the time. In some sense, the failure of News of the World is rooted in its violation of public interest.
However, from a positive point of view, the series of events provided an excellent negative example for global media and can advance the self-discipline of the media. As the saying goes, credibility feeds the power of speech. News of the World has already been a good lesson. In the future, if any media dares to throw caution to the wind, they should think about the possible consequences first. Murdoch is powerful enough, but he still lost a lot, and it seems like the loss is just beginning.
What’s even surprised Murdoch is that the recently revealed events caused the government, the Congress, the police, the press and even the judiciary to take action. In the meantime, while Murdoch managed the crisis in a manner similar to amputation, the U.K. government is considering further improvement of the media regulatory system, to maximize citizens’ privacy and also, to some extent, to allow the media to realize the importance of guarding credibility. To this, British media happily expressed that this means we have an opportunity to establish a new relationship among politics, media and the public, which happens once in a generation.
The scandal is particularly noticeable because of its involvement in politics. The British prime minister was the first to be affected. Since his former right-hand man, Andy Coulson, was the chief editor at News of the World and was suspected of eavesdropping, Cameron was very embarrassed. What he can do is distance himself from this as soon as possible. What depressed Murdoch more is that the U.S. Congress and the U.K. Parliament said consecutively that they would get involved in the scandal, which made the whole situation even more complicated, especially because the superior social capacity and powerful voice of the U.S. Congress cannot be underestimated by Murdoch.
The scandal also revealed the dirty deeds of some British tabloids to the public. The Guardian said that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown had been watched by tabloids for more than 10 years and that The Sunday Times under Murdoch used fraudulent means to break into his bank account information and legal documents, and even broke into the computer of Brown’s auditor, acquiring his financial data. What a case of collapse and disappear. Behind the series of exposure and disgraceful deeds is the great neglect and loss of credibility of Murdoch’s media empire.
Unscrupulously chasing and even making up news [shows] the distastefulness of News of the World. In this respect, the longevity of The New York Times is a good example. In pursuit of authenticity, The New York Times took the prudent path — sometimes reporting slower or more concisely than others, but never speaking randomly. To some extent, sometimes speaking less means maintaining a powerful voice. Moreover, calmness and rationality is the motto for people at The New York Times.
In fact, as a renowned reporter and former editor of the Times stated, the most important selling point of a newspaper is its reputation. If a newspaper has no reputation, then it may as well be closed. After all, a newspaper relies on trust to survive. If there’s no trust, journalism cannot exist.
The lack of self-discipline is key to the loss of the powerful voice of Murdoch’s media. In the U.S. and the U.K.’s mainstream media, self-discipline is everywhere. In some relatively famous and long-lived media, the advertising department and newsroom are often on different floors; for example, the newsroom is on the second floor, and the advertising department is on the fourth floor. Even then, when people in the two departments meet in the elevator, they seldom speak to each other, to save themselves from suspicion. This is a kind of “firewall” setting, after media entered the advertising era.
In order to avoid the commercial atmosphere brought by advertising that may anesthetize the media nerve and pollute freedom of the press, America’s mainstream media not only forbids journalists from being involved in advertising, but also deliberately builds inner walls between the newsroom and the operations department; such walls have been standing there since the first wall was built in the early ‘20s. Unfortunately, Murdoch, though having been in America’s media for a long time, still seems to have no sense of the importance of the “inner wall.”
The management philosophy also makes a difference in the power of speech. In the summary of the failure of Murdoch’s MySpace, the philosophy of [putting] advertising first instead of the audience is seen as a big problem. In sharp contrast to this, supported by the philosophy of audience first, The New York Times has long been supported by the spirit of providing rich content. The NYT Company defines itself fundamentally as a content provider, which is to offer the audience high-quality news through every channel. Such concept is non-existent in News of the World, since the interest of the audience is what they harm most of the time. In some sense, the failure of News of the World is rooted in its violation of public interest.
However, from a positive point of view, the series of events provided an excellent negative example for global media and can advance the self-discipline of the media. As the saying goes, credibility feeds the power of speech. News of the World has already been a good lesson. In the future, if any media dares to throw caution to the wind, they should think about the possible consequences first. Murdoch is powerful enough, but he still lost a lot, and it seems like the loss is just beginning.
What’s even surprised Murdoch is that the recently revealed events caused the government, the Congress, the police, the press and even the judiciary to take action. In the meantime, while Murdoch managed the crisis in a manner similar to amputation, the U.K. government is considering further improvement of the media regulatory system, to maximize citizens’ privacy and also, to some extent, to allow the media to realize the importance of guarding credibility. To this, British media happily expressed that this means we have an opportunity to establish a new relationship among politics, media and the public, which happens once in a generation.