(11i) They did it again
When the hacking became public a few years ago, public outrage was big, not so much because celebrities were targeted because many people like to know what celebrities do as the latter earn money being famous and thus the public loves to know about any of their (mis)behaviour. No, outrage was mainly because ordinary people were targeted who had suffered great distress such as a mother of a missing girl who was found murdered.
And maybe the bosses at the news organisations didn't know what was happening because indeed, bosses can't always know what employers do but should report them as soon as they know they are misbehaving (and not condemn whistleblowers). Still, immediately after the scandal broke, the value of the 'Murdoch' shares tumbled while today, only a few years later, they seem to be higher than before the scandal. In addition, the scandal brought the family together, certainly now Rupert Murdoch's girlfriend left him while a few years working in the twilight zone allowed the children to gain experience and approval from investors although the number of people who thrust them is still lower than before but probably will rise again when their empire rises again, certainly when they may have a few new stories.
Because, that these newspapers haven't learnt their lesson yet became obvious recently via the story by the Daily Mail (although not part of Murdoch's group) about George Clooney and his future wife. Indeed, it seems they made false accusations and later apologised for this although I think they didn't expect his very courageous decision of not accepting the apology. Indeed, newspapers can claim to apologise but then should proof it is sincere by not repeating their misbehaviour or they show their apology was only made because they realised they went too far and people may condemn them for this and thus profits may fall. I call his refusal to accept the apology courageous because now he and others involved risk attacks from the newspaper for not accepting their apology. If they would do this, it would proof their apology was not sincere as otherwise they would understand his refusal. Now it seems Mr Clooney wants to make a film about the British hacking scandal (and this could mean more oil on the fire).
But it is not only the media that is guilty as Monica Lewinsky talks about in her well presented speech (in which she shows she is a grown-up woman) about her bullying because she felt in love with her boss, the then president of the USA. Indeed, the media broadcasted this news as if it was the most important thing on earth. The only thing that is missing in her speech is how she was used by many to damage the president (as today the same party tries to damage the present president by spreading rumours) while the president could have cut the story by being honest (although of course he probably didn't want to hurt his family). But as she mentions, wherever she went and goes, there were and still are people ridiculing her because she felt in love with someone although many show their support. She speaks about having thought about suicide and decided it was time she starts speaking about her experience, not only because she hopes that one day people will stop blaming her but also so other people will think and stop bullying others. Still, taking someone else her man is also not very nice although he too could have refused.
After the Leveson inquiry many newspapers rejected actions against newspapers, and now after the 'not guilty' verdict of most of the main players in the hacking scandal, many may think they can continue as before because they are untouchable. But they should be careful not going too far because indeed many people, including powerful people, are starting to get fed up with newspapers that report or worse, invent news events that were meant to be private. And ones too far, very severe consequences can follow, certainly when those stories may threaten the career of ambitious people.