If you follow the UK media at all, you will no doubt have seen a number of articles recently about the News of the World/Andy Coulson phone hacking scandal. In fact, it was an article in the New York Times which kicked off recent interest. The Guardian then started to pick it up (the linked article gives a bit of a round-up, and you can jump to related stories from there).
Apparently, The Guardian is running out of angles. Or something. Today, they have an article about an investigator who was convicted in 2005 of passing information on to newspapers. This is only related to the News of the World/Coulson scandal because it’s the same sort of thing – and, perhaps, because it provides some idea of the context in which this sort of illicit data-mining goes on.
This is what I’m interested in:
He said it seemed unfair that newspaper executives and journalists who commissioned him had not been convicted of any wrongdoing. “It would appear unfair,” he told the programme. “It would appear they should have stood and be counted but quite frankly I wasn’t expecting any support from them.
“[Journalists] actually asked me to do it on their behalf. I suppose you could view it as my Oliver Twist to the press’s Fagin. Something along those lines. Requests were asked of me by people who I viewed as really being above reproach. They were huge corporations. I assumed they knew what they were asking for.”
Shorter: Oh, how was I meant to know it was wrong when huge corporations asked me to do it!
Is it just me, or is anyone else having trouble being sympathetic?
(I may agree with him that it’s not fair that others also didn’t get hit with any penalties, but that’s no excuse for him!)
Read Full Post »