The News of the World phone hacking scandal--who do you think is to blame?
By dragon54u
@dragon54u (31636)
United States
July 20, 2011 2:49pm CST
A lot of people are blaming the publisher, Rupert Murdoch, for his employees hacking the phones of murder victims, fallen soldiers, kidnap victims, etc. Years ago when they hacked the Royals' phones everyone thought it was amusing and titillating, and they giggled with glee at the dirt the paper dished up with those heinous methods of snooping.
Now it's a different story. They hacked the phones of ordinary, suffering people and people are outraged. They blame Murdoch, the head of the corporation.
But really, is it his fault? He can't keep an eye on every corner of his empire. And after all, hacking wouldn't be necessary if people didn't spend money on tabloids that defame people, tell lies, exaggerate the least little mistake or impropriety and generally try to ruin peoples' lives for the entertainment of others.
I think the blame lies with the readers. They demand more and more humiliation of public figures and tragedies, more sensationalism to the point where they won't even bother reading stories that merely report the news--they must have scandal, blood, misery and something to shock them.
So who's at fault here? The readers who demanded what the paper gave or the owner of the paper? I say both--readers for wanting such trash and the owner for providing it. Of course, if Murdoch didn't provide it, someone else would..humans can be such low creatures sometimes. 
What do you think?
What do you think?5 people like this
10 responses
@Hatley (163781)
• Garden Grove, California
20 Jul 11
hi dragon54u I do not enjoy that trashy stuff like the star and other scandalous tabloids. It just turns me off completely yet some shoppers in the grocery stores I have gone to will grab on of those and stand there reading that trash and even forget to move up to the check out stand. I think you summed it up really well. the readers and the tabloids and this Rupert Murdoch are all to blame in my own estimation.I have never purchased one of those and no I am curious nor do I love gossip so maybe I am weird. I do not know. lol lol
2 people like this
@GardenGerty (157692)
• United States
20 Jul 11
I wonder if he is ashamed because it was wrong, or ashamed because his company got caught.
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
20 Jul 11
Well, we can be weird together! 
I wouldn't even let my kids touch those rags when they went to the store with me, I would rather let them touch cow poop. I agree that the blame should be shared here. At least he closed down the paper and said he was ashamed, I give him credit for that much.
I wouldn't even let my kids touch those rags when they went to the store with me, I would rather let them touch cow poop. I agree that the blame should be shared here. At least he closed down the paper and said he was ashamed, I give him credit for that much.1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
20 Jul 11
No telling, Gerty, but he's of the generation that would rightly be ashamed of such behavior from his employees.
@lilbabycatapillar (497)
• United States
20 Jul 11
I don't think we can really blame readers for anything, they take what they're given. And we've all been guilty of enjoying a scandal at some point or another, it's just human nature. People just love gossip, and that includes me, and you too. People have to be responsible for themselves, and keep their private lives as private as possible. There are times when it can't be helped, and a person's most intimate things are revealed. It's not right, but it's never going to end. Someone does have to take responsibility, and the witnesses aren't the responsible.
1 person likes this
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
21 Jul 11
I agree with Dragon on this. I used to buy the Star for the crossword puzzle when I was really young until it occured to me that I was contributing to this by buying the dam thing even though I didn't read it. It's all about the golden rule. Do unto others what you would have done to you". We are all just people. Would you like it if you stepped out to get your paper in the morning and someone snapped a pic of you in sweats and no make-up and hair a mess and put it out there for the world to see? Would you like it if you were having a private conversation with a family member and someone recorded it and made it world wide news? Your daughter does something disgraceful and you are devastated? Do you want the world to hear all your private conversations? Ok so I guess this one is the 9/11 victims? I haven't heard the details nor do I care to. I can only imagine that the families of these people are still suffering and to have their private phones hacked, well, that has to just be painful and I can't imagine anyone would think it is not an invasion of privacy.
1 person likes this
@KrauseHome (36448)
• United States
23 Jul 11
Personally how can they really just want to blame just one person? In reality like you have shared here, there are always people who are going to be Snooping for such information like this. When the News media in general is willing to share and tell all about Celebrities, why would there not be people preying on others who have suffered some sort of loss, etc. as well. Personally it is not right, and should never be allowed, but then how is it ever going to be completely stopped? People everyday are getting caught doing things no one else would ever would have dreamed of.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
24 Jul 11
I would like to see a magazine that targets those people that read that trash--stories about their tawdry little lives and see how they feel when they are humiliated in public. There would be such an outcry!! And lawsuits!! But since this trashy publication and others like it deal with public figures they think it's fair game to stick their noses in and practically quiver with ecstasy each time they get to read about somebody's misery. I despise such people and think they are to blame more than the tabloid--without these bottom feeders, tabloids would not exist.
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
21 Jul 11
For starter, no matter what happens in a business, the owner of the business is responsible. He is responsible for the mistakes of his employees, the managers and the CEO of the company.
He deleguate the job to the CEO to supervise the managers. And the managers supervise the employees. But if something bad happens along the chain, like it is now, it all comes back to Rupert Murdoch. It is his job to know what is going on.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that no-one knew about it in the company, if the outside world was able to find out about it. What Rupert and his associates are doing now, is playing the blame game. And please note, that not a single person has been name. If Rupert Murdoch was truly sorry, heads in his company would be rolling. But it is not the case. He closed the newspaper to make everything go away.
When they hacked the Royals'phones, and got away with it... they were given a green light to do whatever they wanted. So they did.
Don't blame the people. The people are stupid and you cannot rely on the people to do the right thing. That's why we have a government and a police force to keep the stupids on the right track. There are very few people who would refuse to break the law for a 10K payout under the table. It is the guy who offers the 10K who is ultimately responsible.
1 person likes this
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
21 Jul 11
Public demand has nothing to do with it.
The public is an animal which will go for anything.
If you remove the laws
Any serious drinker will drink and drive because he reckons he/she can.
75% of motorists will tell you that they are capable to drive a car at twice the speed limit.
75% of men would sleep with a 15 year old if it was not against the law.
Laws are artificial, and do not represent the primal instincts of humans.
Laws are made to civilise us.
And that's include religion.
Religion introduced the very first laws to civilise us.
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
21 Jul 11
True. Murdoch had a weak link in the chain and someone, somewhere should have known about it and stopped it at the start. The problem is that there is no longer such a thing as ethics in journalism because of the demands of the people--greed leads publications and news shows to pander to the public's taste for human misery.
Still, I hold the public responsible more than management. If they didn't demand such things there wouldn't be a market for them. You're right, the stupids need to be kept in line and that's caused us no end of troubles, particularly when you look at how large gov't grows when the stupids get greedy.
@hardworkinggurl (37063)
• United States
20 Jul 11
To a sense the public is responsible because if the media did not display so much to strengthen the curiosity the media would not continue to dish it out. The media puts it out and the people encourage for more. So really it is the responsibility of both, but if you look at it really the public is who encourages it.
Personally when I hear about celebs and or things like this, I am not one to care how they breathe and or live. But there are some who play it to no end. To be honest with you I am not even sure what is going on these days with the Murdoch case, because once I hear the first stages about things like this that is enough for me. lol
@changjiangzhibin89 (16549)
• China
21 Jul 11
This makes people think that they lack of the sense of safety because "Walls have ears."I consider that money is to blame,because people who hacked the phone didn't do so for their health.Under such news system where they hunt for novelty and sensation ,this type of thing will occur sooner or later.Today the reputation of the News of the World is called into question,but who knows the next one.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
21 Jul 11
There are thousands of publications that do nothing but dig up dirt on people. It makes me ashamed to be human to know how much money those poisonous publications make.
1 person likes this
@bellis716 (4799)
• United States
21 Jul 11
I agree that both the reader and the publisher are responsible.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
21 Jul 11
Thank you. I don't know why everyone is blaming Murdoch exclusively. Perhaps they don't care to look at the ugliness inside themselves.
@bunnybon7 (50973)
• Holiday, Florida
21 Jul 11
well im not sure if this is the same thing. but im really sick of all the money casey anthony and her family and lawyers are making from her killing her baby. and everyone still buys things with their stories interviews, etc. hopfully we will mostly boycott any books or whatever. 
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
21 Jul 11
I learned a new word last night that applies here, Schadenfreude. It means taking pleasure in the misery of others. I think the western world is fraught with people afflicted with schadenfreude.
@naija4real (1291)
•
20 Jul 11
I think society especially the uk readers and international readers alike is guilty we glorify gossips and side talk, we poke nose into people 's affair just to get cheap information. That is what the news of the world represent and this paper spend all its life feeding us with so much garbage. Now we are all denying our association with the paper. Rupert Murdoch knows the truth, he understand that the people who are condemning and crucifying him in the press and the government once where is bosom friend. this is indeed fair weather friend as far as the scandal is concerned.
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
21 Jul 11
Very true, Naija4real. Everyone loved Murdoch when he was a rich publisher but once the rock is turned over and all the cockroaches begin running away from the light he is condemned and scorned by the very people who read his trash.
@RBBantiles (347)
• Philippines
20 Jul 11
Yes, I agree with you. Under the command responsibility system, Mr. Murdoch is responsible. He too is responsible for providing, if not personally creating, a culture and environment of support for such acts. He could have gotten down heavy everytime it has been done. He didn't. Instead, he allowed it to be printed. He may not have the time to proofread everything before publication, but he does have time to review the headline - just the headline - everyday. He is an experienced publisher, he knows just what a headline means, so he will have antennas where possible leaks and statements have been obtained by such means. Or he can ask. Simple.
And the financial settlements? Common... He must know his numbers. How else can he take over other papers? These accounts are departures from normal expenses in size and (ir)regularity.
There is only one defense that Mr. Murdoch can take: that he is losing his touch. But I don't think he is losing it.
The readers share the blame too, for lapping it up, for providing an environment for more.
But who is more to blame? Mr. Murdoch and his paper. They have more responsibility. They can refrain. They also have the choice what can be published. They also can shape the taste of the reading public.
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
21 Jul 11
Yes, Murdoch could help shape the taste of the reading public but there is a thing called GREED that affects everyone in the world in some way. When he saw the profit the paper was making, I bet he didn't monitor it very closely, if at all. I doubt he knows much more than the name of the paper, he has so many holdings, but his managers down the line should have done something--but they were probably getting kickbacks and bonuses, too. What does some human misery matter when you're making a handsome profit? 
