Why the News of the World should be caned for its scandalous errors

The Max Mosley judgment won't inhibit press freedom. It might curb some of the excesses of the News of the World, but don't hold your breath. It might therefore mean that some people may avoid the humiliation he has suffered.

But, in the short term at least, it will not prevent proper journalistic investigation by responsible newspapers attempting to reveal stories that really count.

It was obvious that the NoW's story had not the least public interest justification. Mosley is hardly a public figure. To film him, and then to publish a sensational story based on the thinnest of thin "evidence" of his supposed Nazi interests, was contemptible. Without the Nazi allegations, as the paper knew well, there was no earthly reason to publish the story, beyond satisfying public prurience.

As the NoW's reporter, editor and lawyer trooped into court I have to admit feeling a little sorry for them. I know that reporter Neville Thurlbeck is not a bad man. I have little time for editor Colin Myler, but he is not an immoral man. I have enormous respect for lawyer Tom Crone, but his involvement in this story is less than impressive.

All three, despite their claims to exercising free will, are really cogs in a scandalous machine that is based on gross hypocrisy. They seek out stories that they know will titillate their audience - and thereby maintain the paper's high sales - without any regard for the effect on the "victims" and on society itself. Much of the content of the News of the World nowadays makes a mockery of its old claim to be "a family newspaper".

It has laughingly set itself up to a moral arbiter. Yet, over the years, it has been responsible for consistently extending the boundaries of public taste by publishing the salacious details of sexual acts. Then, having done so, it affects to wonder why society is going downhill. But let's take a closer look at the catalogue of basic journalistic errors made by the NoW in publishing a story that Myler regarded one of "legitimate public interest".

Firstly, it failed to have the German dialogue in the S&M orgy translated. Why not? Potentially that might have provided better "evidence" of a Nazi theme than the English speech. Second, Myler admitted having seen little of the video himself. Surely an editor about to publish a sensational story should have concerned himself with every possible detail in advance of publication?

Third, Myler expressed surprise that his reporter had failed to obtain a signed statement from Woman E before printing her story. Should he not have known that from the beginning?

Fourth, the inbuilt, old-fashioned anti-German prejudice of the staff meant that they confused German play-acting for Nazism. To speak in German or with a German accent does not make a person a Nazi.

Fifth, the paper failed to put any of the allegations to Mosley prior to publication. Yet there is a clear requirement for journalists to do so. (It is ironic that a couple of years ago when I wrote a story that called into question the veracity of certain NoW investigations its editor and legal department not only required that I put the allegations to the paper but demanded a right of reply).

The great turning point in this sordid affair came when the NoW's star witness, Woman E, refused to testify. She was the key player. She negotiated a deal with the NoW in advance of the orgy (a deal, incidentally, in which she did not get the money originally promised to her). She was the one who secretly filmed it.

I was so looking forward to her being cross-examined to answer some simple questions. Who had really suggested the Nazi theme? Did she approach the NoW, or did they approach her? Did she brief the other women to implant Nazi-style activities into the scenario? Did her husband, an MI5 operative who has since resigned from his job, have any part in the affair?

Instead, she failed to appear because of her "emotional and mental state." Was that her emotional and mental state and that of the News of the World as well?

I was surprised that Mr Justice Eady did not call a halt to proceedings at that point because the NoW's defence had, in effect, collapsed.

What should happen now? Myler, like his predecessor, Andy Coulson, should resign. He won't, of course, even though he once spoke of Coulson having done "the honourable thing - a principle rarely seen in public life nowadays." Anyway, Rupert Murdoch, tends to circle the wagons around editors who screw up.

The News of the World should clean up its act. It won't, of course. The great British public - as the NoW likes to say of its readership - should stop buying and reading the News of the World. They won't, of course.

So nothing will change. A rogue newspaper will go on invading the private lives of people by using "the public interest" as a defence for its intrusions. The loser will be other newspapers because, gradually, judges will develop a law on privacy that might well lead to a genuine denial of press freedom. And one paper will be entirely responsible for that.

Close