The ripples of one of the world's great newspaper scandal have now splashed upon former News of the World CEO Rebekah Brooks as police announced her arrest today. Brooks had offered her resignation as a News Corp executive Friday, preceding the resignation of Wall Street Journal publisher Les Hinton on Saturday.
Brooks is the 10th person to be arrested though her involvement in a British phone hacking scheme is not exactly clear. The news of Hinton's resignation seems a matter of a Murdoch loyalist falling on his shield.
Hinton previously testified before Parliament in 2009 as head of Murdoch's British newspaper division. At that time, Hinton testified that the hacking scandal was limited to the activity of a single reporter.
Brooks has also been summoned to testify before the British Parliament. The possibility of criminal charges may now limit her testimony, though it could still be obtained under an immunity from prosecution agreement.
The latest troubles for Murdoch's media empire began with the alleged 2002 intrusion into the voice mail system of murdered British schoolgirl Milly Dowler. If news coverage of Dowler's sensational murder seemed too thorough, it may have been because the tabloid's reporters were listening to her phone messages after she had been killed.
British police believe that News of the World reporters deleted the murdered 13 year old's messages when the voice mailbox became full. That illegal phone activity led Dowler's parents to have false hopes that their child was still alive.
The scandal has underscored a multi-dimensional world of media rivalry, and controversy regarding what newspapers should or should not publish.
Newspapers have been free to publish classified information leaked to them by Julian Assange, in a precedent that goes back to the Pentagon Papers.
The dividing line between aggressive reporting and criminal activity is the manner in which information is obtained.
Aside from criminal activity, news media ethics have always been questioned.
Does a free press mean that the media has the right to ride roughshod over the private lives and loves of politicians, celebrities, and private persons? The answer is complicated by the fact that celebrity publicists often invite media scrutiny.
But what of persons like the late Princess Diana whose car was chased by the paparazzi into a tragedy in a Paris tunnel? There are hundreds of "celebrities" who make it plain they would like the freedom of the private lives most of us enjoy, but cannot attain it.
And what of the press encampment outside the home of former criminal defendant Casey Anthony in Florida?
There is an irony, too, in the "sting" arranged by British actor Hugh Grant which exposed what one reporter said was widespread illegal hacking activity. Mr. Grant was himself the target of tabloid sensationalism when he engaged a Hollywood prostitute in 1995.
Politics is a different matter, and the freedoms of media inquiry are seldom questioned. It is widely believed that people have a right to know what their elected officials are up to.
Newlywed former New York Representative Anthony Weiner served as his own tabloid publicist when he tweeted "sexy" (term is used loosely) photos of himself to young female internet contacts.
Several accounts say that the U.S. Secret Service had a hand in protecting former President John F. Kennedy from the inquiring eyes of the press in his relations with women outside his marriage.
But that bygone era has its British parallel when the tabloid press erupted in public condemnation of the 1963 Christine Keeler-John Profumo scandal, which has its modern-day implications, too.
Anthony Ventre is a freelance writer who has written for weekly and daily newspapers and several online publications. He is a frequent Yahoo contributor, concentrating in news and financial writing.
There are no comments yet