By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent

On 11 Feb 2012 the “hackgate” cancer besetting Rupert Murdoch’s media empire metastasized.

Damage from revelations concerning hacking at the News of the World had appeared under control, if not in total remission, following its demise. The Parliamentary select committee ceased its inquiry. The Leveson hearing spread the pain, embarrassment, and most importantly, the attention across all of Fleet Street.  Murdoch receded from center stage.

But in the meantime 130 police investigators were quietly sifting through 300 million emails turned over to them by News International’s internal review body, as well as investigating spin off leads. 

11 Feb 2012 big news shook journalism. It virtually exploded across Twitter. Subsequently it found its way into the media of both the UK and US.  Early the morning of the 11th of February police dramatically arrested 8 persons in connection with allegations of public official corruption. The public officials included not only police, but 1 Ministry of Defence civilian and 1 serving military officer. 

In the UK police do not release names pending an actual decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to charge. But what the police did release was explosive. It was all tied to The Sun, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship newspaper in the UK. These arrests brought the total of Sun journalists arrested to 10.  The arrestees included award winning and senior journalists and editors. 

The hackgate scandal had already claimed every major figure at News of the World, including Andy Coulson (then the Prime Minister’s spin doctor) and Rebecca Brooks Wade (who was editor at both News of the World and The Sun).  It may still claim James Murdoch, one of Rupert Murdoch’s sons, if prosecutors conclude he misled Parliament in testimony before a select committee.

Once again the focus of public attention shifted to Rupert Murdoch and the news empire that has so long dominated the journalistic and political scenes in the UK (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the US).

Reaction among Sun journalists was swift. Across the staff, although they had not been personally arrested or accused, Sun journalists reacted with obvious defensiveness, anger and fear. Twitter buzzed with rumours of wholesale “civil war” between journalists and management.  Major newspapers confirmed those rumours in days to come in an unaccustomed airing of journalistic angst.  

Rupert Murdoch reacted with equal swiftness, and specifically to the unrest.  The Sun has been his flagship paper, the paper by which he had first penetrated the UK market, the paper of largest circulation in the UK.   Murdoch announced he would head to London to personally take charge of sorting out the crisis. 

Arriving 17 Feb, Murdoch immediately sent an email to staff; then met with them. The email was in two obvious parts.  The first part was Murdoch to his troops. The second part was lawyer speak, explaining why News Corp had to cooperate with the investigation.  The Murdoch bit sought to unreservedly assure staff that those arrested would be allowed to return to work, that he would stand by them, that he would not close The Sun as he had the News of the World. In fact, he planned to unveil a Sunday edition in the near future. The second bit - nevertheless expressed in lawyer speak - demonstrated corporate determination to cooperate fully with the investigation.   Murdoch promised to remain in London for the duration to lead The Sun’s “fight back” amid rumours of a pending major announcement by the Met (Scotland Yard) the weekend of the 17th.

Not the Seventh Cavalry

Not everyone was satisfied.  Not everyone saw Murdoch’s swoop into town aboard his personal jet as the 7th Cavalry coming to the rescue. Many were dissatisfied and/or singularly unimpressed.

The Guardian, certainly not Murdoch’s greatest fan, helpfully pointed out to Murdoch’s staff the legal “errors” in Murdoch’s email explanation as to why team Murdoch turned over journalists and sources to the authorities.  

CALSTRS, a major stockholder, confirmed in a statement carried by Channel 4 News that CALSTRS was not convinced News International should continue to operate The Sun, but they were convinced that whether or not News International did was a decision for the board of directors not Mr. Murdoch. 

The Guardian and CALSTRS were not alone.

Many on the staff of The Sun were not mollified.  According to fellow journalists on Twitter, staff remain upset that the rules of the game changed. Activity that had been at least tacitly sanctioned could now bring criminal charges and disgrace.  These journalists felt more than thought that Murdoch “fed the journalists and their sources to the wolves” in, they reasoned, an effort to save Murdoch’s own power and influence. 

Martin Wolf, Murdoch’s biographer, speaking to several media outlets, renewed his prediction that the end was at hand for the Murdoch empire, at least in the UK. Wolf argues that events are not in Murdoch’s control, but Murdoch seems to be under the delusion he can control them.

Andrew Neil, formerly editor of The Times,  also puts Murdoch’s chances of rescuing The Sun as slim. Neil characterized Murdoch’s sweep into town and grand announcement as a temporary “holding” action.

The New York Times, like an historian observing an ancient imperial court or the old Soviet Politburo, took an interest in who came along in the Murdoch train - and who did not. James was out and Lachlan, Murdoch’s eldest son, was in.  Others echoed the observation.

Some who cover this topic wrote almost sentimentally of the fall of the Murdoch Empire from political power, already writing the empire’s epitaph.

 In the US -  When will "considering" become "doing?"

Meanwhile, authorities in the United States reputedly are considering an investigation of News Corp. under the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act.  A story that somewhat predates the latest events, one does wonder when considering will become doing.

It is clear that many observers considered this Murdoch’s last, quixotic stand in Britain, and maybe the opening salvo for the battle for the US.

As of the writing of this article 19 Feb, the rumoured big announcement from the Met has not been forthcoming.  Perhaps that is just as well. Not just because it may offer me another sequel.  Most significantly, the focus on Murdoch as much masks what is important as illuminates it.  While it is surely necessary to hold Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch empire accountable for their behaviour, it is at least as important not to let one powerful man’s dramatic battle hijack the broader issues of press practices.  Events equally (if less dramatically) demonstrate a need for systemic change, not just sacrificial goats.

During the Leveson Hearing journalist and editor after journalist and editor testified there was no need for state regulation, indeed it is dangerous. They argued in the dock and in editorials that all the hackgate attention has forever altered press culture. The bad practices have been stopped. Hackgate would never be replicated.

But just last week dozens of journalists, and not just from The Sun, reacted with defensiveness, fear and anger to the arrests of the 10 Sun journalists.  The Sun journalists engaged in a very public “civil war” with management, decrying the revelation of sources and journalists to the authorities. Does that suggest a reformed press?

Journalists and editors testifying at Leveson argued that the public's need to know justified hacking, use of private investigators and payments to the police. Yet their own reaction to disclosure of the practices reveals an awareness of their illegality and ethical questionableness. 

Both sets of comments sound defensive to the non-journalist. They suggest that rather than reformed, a fair many journalists consider themselves the wronged, punished and deterred from a worthy purpose. 

This issue is of the utmost importance. 

It is important because journalists are supposed to protect us from corruption not instigate it. 

It is also important because of the revolving door between public office, the press, and “communications” managers.   Journalists become Press Officers, Press Officers become PR Consultants, PR consultants and Press Officers become journalists. At least one former PR Consultant is now Prime Minister and his Education Secretary was a journalist for Murdoch’s Times.

PR consultants work for “charities” influencing public policy, plant articles that are carried in the media as a basis of ostensibly objective “stories.  It is a major industry with demonstrable major impacts on public life.

As journalists, their commentary creates a below conscious web of consensus as to what is true and what is false in public life. Yet they are also at any given time the spin makers. 

Andy Coulson leaves News of the World and becomes the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary.  Lord Freud, Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law, leads the charge in the House of Lords for the Prime Minister’s controversial and disability demeaning welfare reform package.  The wife of the current Press Secretary, Craig Oliver, is a prime time presenter on BBC news, relating stories concerning the operation of her husband’s employer. Craig Oliver himself worked for BBC News before becoming Press Secretary.

The point is not that these individuals are corrupt. The point is it is vital to maintain the integrity of such an integrated system, a system on which we all depend for our perception of reality.

PR devices created and promoted by graduates of this revolving door influence our perception of reality.   News media increasingly rely on “placed” pieces from “astroturf” organizations and shadowy “charities” with strong ties to politicians.  Many of the pieces I have written for WhirledView have sought to bring these connections into the public eye. 

It is not an exaggeration to say the current situation risks the fox in charge of the hen house.   Abuse and corruption grow in dark places where transactions are hidden rather than transparent and power is exercised unchecked. The Leveson Hearing and the most recent arrests of Sun journalists have made clear how substantial the risk is.

The question remains:  how to regulate this phenomenon?       

But the question in a free society remains, how to regulate this phenomenon?  It is clear self-regulation has been tried and failed miserably in the UK.  On the other hand a free society cannot accept a priori censorship of speech. We need an active, engaged, and critical press.  But neither can a free society tolerate the perversion of this principle to cover corruption and the ruthless exercise of unchecked leverage over those in whom we entrust power.  

What is the answer? 

For me Leveson has demonstrated the answer.  Abuse and corruption grow in dark places. Bringing those practices into the harsh light of public scrutiny and repugnance has had a beneficial if, I believe, temporary impact. The answer, it appears to me, is to make the temporary long term.  Make the Leveson process routine. Expand its role to cover the exposure of corrupt practices across the entire revolving door.  In short, make the Leveson process an investigative reporter. 

Previous related posts on WhirledView by John C. Dyer:

"The Reign of the Stateswoman Queen Turns 60 as Britain Suffers A Winter of Discord," February 2012.

"Oh What a Web We Weave as Friends Take Care of Friends with PublicFunds," February 2012.

"What do coalition education secretary and labour MP Chris Bryant have in common?" January 2012

"The Horror the Horror the Horror the Leveson Committee Exposes the Damage Caused by the Unleashed Animal," November 2011.

"Liam Fox and the Atlantic Bridge: Don't Lose the Important Question to the Excitement of the Fox Hunt," October 2011.

"Changing the Dial," August 2011

"In the Wake of the UK Phone Hacking Scandal," July 2011.

By John C. Dyer, UK correspondent

5 Feb 2012 marked the kickoff of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, to be celebrated throughout the coming year.  6 Feb 2012 was the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the throne.

On her accession the young Elizabeth dedicated herself to serve her people. For 60 years through governments of every political persuasion, she has maintained a constant dignity in public and reputed adept private counsel behind the scenes.  Literally thousands of visits to every corner of the globe have contributed to national pride and a national sense of well being, as have her quiet dignity in moments of great personal and national adversity. 

The Queen, a great force for stability as well as its symbol, nevertheless presides, through no fault of her own I might add, over an increasingly troubled land beset by social discord beneath which often seems a placid surface to the rest of the world.

31 Jan 2012, the Queen, pursuant to the recommendation of a Whitehall committee, stripped Fred Goodwin of his knighthood.

In stripping Goodwin the Committee set a new precedent. He had not been convicted of any crime or been guilty of any offense comparable to those of others who had been similarly dishonoured in the past.  By 5 Feb Goodwin had also resigned his role with the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. That he held such a post and had not been removed from it at the same time his knighthood had been stripped reflects the sudden onset of the new ethics.

On 6 Feb the management of Network Rail chose to waive their annual bonus for the pot of money to be redirected into financing safety measures.

Discontent with bankers and the banks has simmered ever since 2008. But recently anger has been building. Politicians, both on the Left and the Right of the political spectrum have tried to mount the wave, like surfers encountering an Australian “big one.”  Goodwin’s departure and the curbing of the bonus awarded new RBS boss Hestor seem to have potentiated rather than curbed the wave.

1 Feb 2012, 36 days into the Leveson inquiry into press ethics (or the lack thereof) and  its appropriate form of regulation, the Daily Mail published a cartoon by “Mac,” entitled “Rise of the Black Squirrel.” The cartoon appeared on page 17.  The cartoon showed a number of black animals perched on a tree and listening to another that says, “I have a dream.” In case the reader did not understand the message, a billboard appears identifying the group as the “black squirrels.” On 6 Feb the Daily Mail's CEO, Paul Darce appeared before Leveson arguing for continued self regulation of the industry. 

On 5 Feb 2012 hackers took over The Daily Mail’s recipe page. While not specifically precipitated by the cartoon, the hackers cited the Mail’s alleged racism among other reasons for the attack.  URLs have been deleted in case of virus attached.

Racism is very much an issue of the day.

On 3 February England football’s FA governing body dumped John Terry as team captain during the pendency of criminal charges against him for abusing another player with a racist taunt. He was the second major player in recent weeks to be disciplined for racist comments. Luis Suarez from Liverpool is currently serving an 8 game ban after the FA concluded he had used a racist comment with regard to another player.

Suarez’s coach, the famous Kenny Dalglish, maintains that the FA dealt unfairly with Suarez.  as does Chelsea Coach Villas-Boas with regards to Terry being stripped of his England Captaincy. On 6 Feb England Manager Fapio Capello argued that Terry should not have been stripped unless and until convicted by a court.

Critics, on the other hand, pointedly ask what, then does racism mean if not this. Critics note that public statements in the heat of battle reflect an unacceptable and pervasive private attitude that must be quashed.

Perceived racism was almost certainly a major factor in last summer’s riots, described previously on WhirledView. (http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2011/10/what-you-were-not-told-about-the-london-riots-of-2011.html)   Anti Semitic attacks were the given reason for the government awarding £2 million to bolster security at Jewish schools and attacks on Muslims are also becoming common.

The reasons for this social tension are complex. They should not be oversimplified.

They are not an easy subject for a blog piece.

But it is undeniable that both the current economic situation and the government’s response to it play a part - some would argue the major part. Many believe that the Coalition’s programme of austerity cuts to the public sector coupled with its radical agenda of reform, each reform touted as the greatest in a generation, have severely exacerbated the situation. Some authorities blame these for the London riots. I previously described the political revolt over the Coalition’s Welfare Reform bill.

Now evidence has emerged in the debate, particularly the resort of organizations like the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party to use the term “scrounger” to describe recipients of benefits, has fueled hatred and abuse of the disabled.

The increasing social tension, austerity and Westminster bullying may fuel growing cries for governance change in Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall, previously reported at http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2012/01/the-ground-begins-to-move-beneath-the-united-kingdom.html .   5 Feb 2012, YouGov polls reported results of a recent poll of Scottish attitudes toward the upcoming referendum on independence. Approximately 2 years in advance of an actual vote the poll showed 37% in favour, 42% opposed, and 21% undecided.

These figures show a marked movement among the electorate. Once a dead bang loser, the independence referendum looks increasingly possible.  Increasingly in Scotland the future of Scotland appears to be Westminster’s to lose.  One begins to feel like just one wrongly played issue could end up deciding the referendum.

Reform of the National Health Service (NHS) may prove to be such an issue.

Beginning 8 Feb the House of Lords will debate the government’s NHS reform bill. It is another of the government’s controversial “greatest reform in a generation” revamps of government services. 

The saga of the approach the government has taken since it came to office reminds me of the Arnold Schwarzenegger playbook when the Gubernator came to power in California. Like the Gubernator they moved for a “bonfire of the Quangos,” a  phrase similar to the Gubernator’s “bonfire of the advisory boards.” Quangos and advisory boards are pretty similar and the objections to them were the same.  Then there was the Gubernator’s “California Performance Review.” Immediately on assuming office the new Coalition did the same.  Like the Gubernator the Coalition has sought to reform every aspect of government. Like the Gubernator the Coalition has sought to restructure pensions and employment rights. 

But there are differences. First, the Prime Minister, unlike the Gubernator, does not have to contend with a separation of powers between Executive and Legislative. He has Parliamentary discipline. The Gubernator could have only have dreamed.  Second, the Prime Minister brings his programme allegedly in response to the debt crisis triggered by the banking bust of 2008, while the Gubernator was not aided by that reason.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has faced a backlash on banker bonuses, tax avoidance, welfare reform and NHS reform.   With regards to NHS, a significant backlash that may dwarf the backlash against Welfare Reform has built up.  The outcome of the upcoming debate is by no means a given.

In a lengthy bill the government proposes two principle changes. The first is to move management of the NHS out from government agencies called Primary Care/Hospital Care Trusts (managed principally by administrators) into General Practice Commissions (operated principally by medical professionals, including nurses as well as physicians).  The second is the introduction of rules and mechanisms designed to push competition and the utilization of private providers and health care organizations.  Particularly controversial are requirements NHS contract with “any willing provider,” translated private providers.

Advocates argue that the changes will put the GP and patient in the driver’s seat in the management of a patient care improved by “choice.”   Critics argue that “choice” is code for the dismantling and privatization of the NHS.  

It is clear that services will be privatized, but it is not yet clear that the government intends to entirely dismantle the NHS. It would take a mind reader to be clear whether the government really believes its own rhetoric.  Critics reach the conclusion the government’s rhetoric is pretext from comparing government statements of intent with multiple studies and histories showing the proposed choice will undercut the viability of the NHS as a whole.  And then there is the small matter of unguarded comments by a Minister here and there. The oops factor.

My own experience in public hospitals suggests that critics are correct at least to this extent - the introduction of choice will undercut the financial viability of the NHS system. That proved to be the case when in the 1970s California introduced “mainstreaming” into the provision of medical care for the medically indigent. It was meant to help. Today many can only daydream of the old days of public hospitals. It will never come again because the capitol outlay is simply out of the question. Critics argue that is what the British system will face.

One can debate endlessly whether the resulting system will be better or worse for patients.  Supporters of the current system point to studies that suggest that the NHS is the single most cost effective care delivery system in the world, delivering essential services “free at the point of delivery” to all of the UK.   Critics point to disappointing (if perhaps dated) studies concerning cancer recognition rates.   The Tory half of the Coalition in particular has been “ruthless” (in the words of a loose lipped Tory Minister) in exposing the system’s alleged failures in patient care. Critics rebut that the private sector is not subject to the NHS’ requirements of public transparency and that actual current performance is very good. Even the Prime Minister has been careful to describe himself as loving the NHS, although one is always deeply suspicious of a love that wants to significantly change the alleged object of affection.

My own experience suggests the truth is somewhere in between.

I have no doubt that a Canadian or French style system, if indeed that is where the government is headed, would deliver abundant, designer care to those who still receive services.   I have no doubt patients who actually receive such care would find it more subjectively satisfying (having received care from both types of systems).  The NHS system grew out of rationing in WWII. It sometimes still suffers from a rationing mentality and care is in fact still rationed.  NHS doctors and staff sometimes seem insensitive to a patient’s subjective wants and needs, putting the emphasis on what has been proven beyond a doubt and not on setting the patient’s concerns at ease.

On the other hand, the UK risks backing into a US system in which 40% of the public cannot afford care.  One cannot transition smoothly to an intelligently designed French or Canadian model system by turning the current public system into chaos in order to destroy it as an alternative.

The choice it seems to me to be between abundant, designer care for a few and adequate care for everyone.

But whatever the pros and cons, it cannot be seriously questioned by proponents that the system the Coalition proposes will not increase costs geometrically.  Hence a decided “tilt” when one considers the Coalition’s argument that such changes are necessary because of the costs of providing care to Seniors. 

Such geometric cost increases and the attendant incapacity of the system to cope are already happening.  The government pushed ahead with implementation even before obtaining formal approval from Parliament, and did so despite a public outcry that forced an alleged “pause and listen” last year. One wonders what was paused.  The NHS professionals have made it clear that the current system is rapidly decompensating under the pressures.

This “greatest reform in a generation” has proven to ignite the biggest single backlash from the public toward any of the government’s reforms.  How great the backlash can be seen vividly in this chart produced by opponent Physicians. 

It would be wrong to intimate the sky is falling, but it would be equally wrong to ignore the centrifugal forces, some of which are clearly exacerbated by current government policies. Particularly the government’s penchant for “the greatest reform in a generation.”  On the eve of the debate in the House of Lords, it is perhaps past time for the Prime Minister to ask himself if further destabilization of the UK is a price worth paying. A government policy effectively of everyman for himself is proving to be everyman hated and everyman lost.  

The Queen, as ever, is doing her part. But she cannot do it alone.