Headline could have been better, eh
Way back in June Beehive wrote about the New York Times’s investigation into Andy Coulson – the News of the World Editor turned Cameron spinner – and phone hacking. There’s no rush over at the Gray Lady, because an article has only just appeared today (Sept 1) – which you can read in all its glory here (Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond) and see a picture of Coulson mocked up as ‘da boss’ here. And apparently there is more to come at the weekend, if we are all still awake.
Frankly it is all colosally long-winded, and for followers of the saga it is easy to conclude that there is nothing new. We certainly knew that the Screws had hacked into voicemails involving Princes William and Harry- a reporter, Clive Goodman went to jail for that; we knew too that various others led by football boss Gordon Taylor had succesfully won damages from the tabloid for further hacking offences.
But what the New York Times tries to do is link Andy Coulson himself to the hacking charges. Here is the paper’s evidence (my emphasis in bold).
Item 1: Two anonymous former reporters.
But interviews with more than a dozen former reporters and editors at News of the World present a different picture of the newsroom. They described a frantic, sometimes degrading atmosphere in which some reporters openly pursued hacking or other improper tactics to satisfy demanding editors. Andy Coulson, the top editor at the time, had imposed a hypercompetitive ethos, even by tabloid standards. One former reporter called it a “do whatever it takes” mentality. The reporter was one of two people who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking. Coulson ultimately resigned but denied any knowledge of hacking.
Verdict: This one is pretty easily deniable – the sources off record, the accusation, broad and vague.
Item 2: A former editor, unnamed. Presumably not those above.
One former editor said Coulson talked freely with colleagues about the dark arts, including hacking. “I’ve been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy” when the subject came up, said the former editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The editor added that when Coulson would ask where a story came from, editors would reply, “We’ve pulled the phone records” or “I’ve listened to the phone messages.”
Verdict: Source sounds good, but this one really needs to be on record. And even then, what does it matter now?
Item 3: A man with a name.
Sean Hoare, a former reporter and onetime close friend of Coulson’s, also recalled discussing hacking. The two men first worked together at The Sun, where, Hoare said, he played tape recordings of hacked messages for Coulson. At News of the World, Hoare said he continued to inform Coulson of his pursuits. Coulson “actively encouraged me to do it,” Hoare said.
Verdict: More plausible still, but are we caring? Hoare is later described as having had drug and alcohol problems, which mean that his evidence could yet come under pressure.
That’s it. No pieces of paper; no evidence in court – just reporters who say they were there and Coulson was there when phone hacking was discussed. Now although Mr C has denied knowing anything about this when he was editor, the real question is how much this matters now.
Nevertheless, the NYT thumbs up two interesting other allegations.
The Met didn’t want to jeopardise its relationship with News Int, publishers of the Screws:
Within days of the raids, several senior detectives said they began feeling internal pressure. One senior investigator said he was approached by Chris Webb, from the department’s press office, who was “waving his arms up in the air, saying, ‘Wait a minute — let’s talk about this.’ ” The investigator, who has since left Scotland Yard, added that Webb stressed the department’s “long-term relationship with News International.” The investigator recalled becoming furious at the suggestion, responding, “There’s illegality here, and we’ll pursue it like we do any other case.” In a statement, Webb said: ‘‘I cannot recall these events. Police officers make operational decisions, not press officers. That is the policy of the Metropolitan Police Service and the policy that I and all police press officers follow.’’
Verdict: This sounds depressingly plausible, although it has clearly been denied.
And lastly, but not very convincingly, it is suggested that all this phone hacking business is still going on – but it is not linked to any senior executives (it is, of course, far too easy for a reporter acting alone to punch in a voice mail code and quietly hack into a celebrity’s messages without anybody else knowing or authorising it).
A phone company had alerted a television personality that someone called her mobile phone in a possible unauthorized attempt to access her voice mail, according to two people with knowledge of the incident. A court order ensued, compelling the phone company to divulge the source of the call. The number was traced to a reporter at News of the World. The paper said the journalist “has been suspended from reporting duties” while it conducts an investigation.
Verdict: Case far from proven. Could easily be a one off.
Given that Britons don’t expect high standards of morality from tabloid reporters, it’s not obvious that the New York Times have got their man.
But keep reading. It was very interesting to read this tweet last night from Ed Miliband: “Andy Coulson and David Cameron need to answer the NY Times allegations”. He willing to go to war with Rupert then?
The NYT investigation casts its net wider than just looking at Coulson, raising some damaging questions about whether the police limited its investigation so as to not upset the News of the World.
To call it long-winded is unfair when surely a large number of the NYT’s readers probably know little or nothing of the case.
The way it describes the Max Clifford side of the story should convince anyone that something is being hidden by News International.
And isn’t it funny that when the Screws execs were before the Select Committee they had what the MPs called ‘collective amnesia’ and engaged in ‘deliberate obfuscation’? They answered almost every allegation with a ‘don’t know’ or ‘don’t recall’ while simultaneously remembering they definitely didn’t know anything dodgy. Hmm.
Also, should you declare an interest here, Dan – that for over five years you took the Murdoch shilling?