Phone CaseWhich of the four views of ethical behaviour can best be applied to this case? Justify your answer.Moral rights view.The unethical, (not to mention illegal) behaviour of the NoW staff, private investigators, police, politicians and all involved in the phone hacking corruption scandal went against all the fundamental rights of privacy.
What rationalisations for this unethical behaviour would the editors, reporters, private investigators and police have given?The police didn’t rationalise their actions because they were getting paid for information and knew that their actions were corrupt and unlawful. The editors and reporters justified their participation because they believed that breaking news was news no matter how it was obtained. They did it to inform their readers and to have exclusivity on breaking stories but the main aim was to increase their readership through sensationalism.
What ‘social responsibility’ strategy did NoW try to implement when the scandal first broke, and how did this change as the scandal unfolded?Their ‘social responsibility’ strategy was to justify their stories by saying business is business and it was their responsibility as a company to increase their readership and hence, maximise profits. They also justified their actions by saying they were making the public aware of various current affairs. As well they included stories of well-known sport stars, celebrities and the Royal family, always news worthy topics. Once investigations started and the scandal unfolded, it became obvious that NoW’s actions were highly illegal and therefore a complete disregard for all individuals right to privacy. It also became obvious that NoW had deliberately ignored evidence of malpractice and covered up evidence.
The Independent:
The report says:
According to the report, NoW sought to discredit the Daily Record, as it had a ‘high degree of bias’ by covering up evidence of fraudulent conduct, fraud, bribery and other matters (including child abuse and the death penalty):
They also tried to silence the Daily Record, as it had a ‘high degree of bias’ by covering up evidence of fraudulent conduct, fraud, bribery and other matters (including child abuse and the death penalty):
The investigation also found “serious evidence that NoW did not have adequate or reliable financial backing and a well-financed media organisation”, as it did not have sufficient resources and as the paper did not take their complaints seriously or were in an area of intense public pressure. An issue for the paper, they said “is whether they have sufficient money to be able to cover staff costs, which includes legal costs including legal process” the report says.
Their ‘accountable facts’ in the publication also “explained the extent of the abuse”, to the ‘incredibly low standard of proof which NoW was given by Daily Record: ‘Our legal department is not a prosecutor or a witness, and there is no established mechanism to prove an accused’s guilt’,” according to the report.
The Independent:
The Independent does not take their questions specifically by questioning them, but rather by saying:
The Independent’s questions are more specific with respect to allegations that the Daily Mirror may have been the main offender in the investigation, particularly given that no other news media organisation had been in touch in the newspaper’s office and no one in the paper was involved in publishing the allegations against Mr Smith.
They also asked the Daily Mirror what they were getting out of it, saying:
What we’re really talking about is an alleged media outlet which could lead to serious consequences for the Guardian and other news organisations because they have a ‘well sourced account’ of what happened. By no means does the paper, which was one of the major outlets, share their account with any other newspaper, yet their claim about ‘independent scrutiny’ does raise questions about the integrity of our democratic process.
What about The Times, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and the Financial Times?
And what about the Sunday Mirror?
The Independent has asked all these questions and answered all of them to date.
Now we can look at what the reports say about these three.
Here are the full sections of the papers’ accounts, including both individual stories: