UK national tabloid The News Of The World (#NOTW) is caught in the eye of a very public storm as revelations allege their involvement in the phone hacking of not just the murdered Milly Dowler, but the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and victims of the July 7th London bombing.
The esteemed Nicholas Tomalin, said that ‘the only qualities needed for real success in Journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.‘ He was not wrong.
It is this cunning that’s got The Guardian’sNick Davies the story, as it’s served up insight into the activities that were allegedly common place at the News Of The World. But let’s not single them out exclusively. News outlets are in competition with one another and it would be odd to think that they were the only ones guilty. In fact, In the 2006 ‘What Price Privacy Now?’ report (below) the Information Commission highlighted that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information. Have a look at the list and you’ll be surprised by some of the titles that were named and shamed. The various reports confirm two methods that journalists and private investigators use to get information, including, ‘through corruption, or more usually by some form of deception, generally known as ‘blagging’. Blaggers pretend to be someone they are not in order to wheedle out the information they are seeking.’
Phone-hacking is really just the tip of the iceberg. Given that most people do not change the default password on their phone it is pretty easy to intercept voice messages. But, getting information on addresses, car registration requires deception and/or as the law describes, corruption.
The above report highlights the case of how in November 2006 Stephen and Sharon Anderson of St Ives in Cambridgeshire pleaded guilty to obtaining and selling information unlawfully whilst operating as private investigators. They used ‘blagging’ techniques to obtain and attempt to obtain personal information about individuals from a number of organisations including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, British Telecommunications plc and various banks.
So, while our eyes are currently on The News Of The World, the real question is, what about organisations that private investigators get their data from? How safe is your data – your bank details, phone numbers, your bills and tax information? And how ready are these businesses for the questions that must be asked? If you work PR in-house or agency-side are you ready for the reputation of your client or employer being questioned? And questions about how safe customers data is? And today, when we work online, how safe our our emails and our personal profiles?
News Of The World’s official line that it was all down to a ‘rogue reporter’ just did not wash from a public relations perspective. While it might have held back the criticism, it was like putting a finger in the dam.
Some newsrooms are aggressive places with boiler-room like cultures. You have to get the story. You don’t ask questions about the how, you just need to make sure that all the pieces fit together and that your legal team sign it off. All of course with the safety net of ‘Public Interest.’ But what is the definition of public interest? And why is the very quiet Press Complaint Commission so neutral? The PCC’s statement was just pointless.
Carter-Ruck Partner Magnus Boyd says, “public interest is always the justification used for such intrusion. It appears the lack of an adequate definition of public interest has allowed many spurious claims to the public interest.“ He says, “At the moment only Ofcom and the PCC offer working definitions of what is in the public interest and both are deliberately vaugue so as to retain sufficient flexibility and applicability.”
“Conversely, however, the lack of precision in the definition of ‘public interest’ allows the concept to be cited on ‘a rather tired and formulaic basis’ in many cases as Mr Justice Eady noted. What is interesting to the public may not neceassarily be in the public interest but we can no longer afford to seek to define it by ommission or by the adage, ‘you’ll know it when you see it’.” We need to define what the public interest is in a way that the general public can understand and relate to and which will have sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing circumstances without being all things to all men”
Talking about celebrity reporting Boyd goes on to explain, “Ironically, celebrity reporting usually requires the least invasive investigation techniques – there are usually people ready to talk off the record and perpetuate the gossip. What may well emerge from recent events is that hacking and blagging were used far more in the investigation of financial and corporate stories than readers may have realised as well as more general news items.”
Up an until The Guardian revealed that the phone of Milly Dowler had been hacked the story seemed distant from the public. It was an issue that just affected celebrities, people, as some might claim, that courted the media. But knowing to what lengths certain media outlets would go to has turned the tide.
A social media campaign by the public has been targeting not just readers of the paper but companies that advertise in the News of the World. Public revulsion is pushing this gossip paper into a tight corner. Companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, NPower, Virgin Holidays have cut their advertising from the title.
The Daily Telegraph’s Harry Wallop commented on Twitter, ‘NotW makes c£35m from ads + c£135m from sales. Few weeks of dropped ads won’t hit paper hard. Reader loyalty is what matters.’
The community is using Twitter and Facebook to spread their disgust and it’s having an impact, with subscribers to The Sun and other News International cancelling their subscriptions.
Social media can whip-up a storm and highlight public sentiment in real-time. Give the community and argument and it will express it’s view. But let’s remember, they are not the only guilty party and PR’s need to be ready for the questions about data, information and privacy that now need to be asked.
****UPDATE***
The Press Complain’s Commission yesterday released a statement that, well, didn’t say much apart from it being unhappy with the conduct of one of it’s members.
Labour MP Alun Michael, himself a former journalist, speaking in an emergency debate about phone-hacking in the Commons yesterday, said: “The PCC is well meaning, but frankly it’s a joke, the public deserve better and the journalists deserve better. The PCC clearly has neither the will nor the ability to change things. What we need is an independent body, that is robust, effective, and has the powers to investigate and enforce. That would be a major step forward.
England’s Football Association gave us a lesson this week on how not to secure change within FIFA to rid it of the ‘alleged’ <cough!> corruption.
For too long FIFA has been a self-serving and inefficient organisation. Like many international governing bodies it’s executive committee has become distant from the supporters who actually and in this case own the game. For FIFA football is all about the business – getting and securing the best sponsorship and trickling these deals down into local associations, many of which are run on a shoestring. That said and as has been reported those who sit on the top table of this once venerable organisation have become unconnected with the people who play this sport.
The politics of sport is ugly and ruthless. But let’s be objective, FIFA has 208 national member associations – more than any other international governing body. The UN itself has 192 states as members. These national member associations represent the world and it’s various and diverse cultures. What is acceptable in some of these countries would be deemed unacceptable in western democracies. But equally, some of the West’s own behaviours would be deemed wrong in many of the states that are represented within the FIFA family. That still is no excuse for much of the activity that has become endemic within this broken organisation.
All this doesn’t excuse the moralising of the UK press towards how FIFA operate. If you read the media from around the world you would be forgiven for thinking that it is all above board. In fact, read Spain’s sports daily Marca or As or any other title from South America or Africa and the only quotes about the alleged corruption come from local titles that quote the stings made by The Times and Sunday Times. Moralising in my opinion doesn’t help with change.
To coincide the publishing of stories about corruption to days before the voting for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup was short-sighted by UK newsdesks. Yet ask UK journalists and you’ll get an answer about public interest. Really? Is it better to run a story before the voting or possibly just after? Would news outlets have got better stories in the lead-up to an English World Cup? All very odd. I’ve had conversations with a few journalists who’s view is that they should be independent and I agree. But the question from a public relations perspective is how you secure change? Are some outlets chasing numbers rather than using their skills to enable better transparency?
Public relations can be a force for good. Sure, many people see this profession as one that focuses on spin and misinformation. But, in countries such as the UK, with a good relationship with media outlets PR could work in harmony to achieve the change that is required within FIFA.
So as we approached this week’s FIFA’s 61st Congress we noted the media and the English FA once again making a stand for what they thought was right. It was a question in my opinion of preaching and not teaching. What they did was get it very wrong, to the extent that their behaviour possibly helped Blatter secure a fourth term in office.
The public relations campaign activity by The FA leaves a lot to be desired. Fit for purpose? I leave you readers to decide.
There used to be days when Britain was good at understanding the world, at doing deals and assisting and promoting best practice. FIFA needs to change, but so does The FA, who is in grave danger of becoming irrelevant to the football family.
The comments were made in the Chamber at the Palace of Westminster hours before legal teams met at the High Court to discuss said gagging order, with one party seeking to have it overturned. Sir Fred himself did not object to the removal of the injunction, which enables the media to run with a story that will put plenty of heat on him once again.
My view is that the press and the individuals using these injunctions and super-injunctions are right. The problem is that in between both arguments lies what is known as public interest, a term used by the media as a ‘catch-all.’ With this self-regulated tool, the media can invade the privacy of anybody and any organisation. And there lies the problem. Organisations need to be accountable, as do the people working for them and for government. That said, there is a fine line that divides a mistake from the effect it has on an organisation.
The law has always been a tool in the public relations armoury. Reputation management has used the law to gag a story from being discussed in the media, very much under the impression that if the media is not able to run the story then nobody will know the issues that can be damaging to their clients reputations and trust. This is naïve, stupid and out dated. Public relations is rarely able to repair the damage that requires this kind of force.
Yes, there is a need for Privacy and there is a need for injunctions and super-injunctions. The question is, should they be made available and affordable to everyone? Yes. Should there be further debate on which applications receive one? Yes. Duplicity and double-standard needs to be outted. From a public relations perspective, reputation management is always harder when the damage has been done, even though said damage is not yet in the public arena.
How many times have we as PR professionals held our head in our hands wandering how we can repair the damage by some ill-conceived decision or action?
The current debate about injunctions and super-injunctions is of course in the media because details of many of these have been outted to social networking sites. The fact is that we live in a less media centric world where consumers of news can obtain gossip and stories online. It is this that smashes the legal structure and protection that the law affords to individuals to protect, rightly or wrongly, the privacy and reputation. But this in itself is a misnomer, because sites such as Google, Facebook and Twitter are based overseas in jurisdictions with firm legal structures.
Social and search sites can be notified and given due time to remove content that libels clients. But this course this course of action to protect one’s soiled reputation carries it’s own risk – reputation is about trust and trust is won and lost in the court of public opinion. It is the members of this court – you and I, that gathers information and consumes it. The fact is that we live in a world where there is less control, which is why PR should learn this and work within the new structure that social networking has created.
I have given presentations to a series of law firms, highlighting how social media and it’s central pillar of information sharing, which happens cross jurisdictions can undermine their work. The skills and ability to share information without leaving a trace is there. The internet is a channel that crosses geographical boundaries. There is concern that such tactics are being used within journalism to undermine the case for privacy. It is a case of cat and mouse, and at the moment the media is the mouse the law is the old lethargic cat.
Reputations today are being saved and more importantly destroyed by our own human willingness to engage in hearsay and gossip. Individuals, companies and brands spend a lot on projecting an image that attracts business. They should be protected, but only if the actions for which they seek an injunction or super injunction are not duplicitous.
Reputation management is today a skill amongst public relations practitioners that requires real-time management. Controlling a crowd is nigh on impossible. Once the damage is done an injunction will only act as a plaster.
PRs have to work not just with the legal court, but importantly the court of public opinion, a court that is a well briefed by content that is available online.
BREAKING NEWS:
It appears that a UK Premier League player has started legal proceedings against Twitter to secure the disclosure of the currently ‘unknown persons’. Legal firm Schillings said in a statement, “to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order.”
We assume that such action will be taken by a partner law firm in California, though given that the unlawful act has taken place in the UK, a separate legal jurisdiction, it is going to be tricky to see how this works. Of course, if those people who started the allegations are in the UK then they will not be eligible to America’s Constitution First Amendment, which allows free speech.
Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.
Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business. Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.
The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.
Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place. It is part and parcel of what the business world. Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.
That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor? Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged. Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses. Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.
All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.
The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:
Mercurio’s experience appears to lie within the political sector, certainly this was his sole beat between when he graduated from Boston University with a degree in Journalism and until he left The National Journal as Executive Editor.
Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project. Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:
In Mercurio’s opening email on May 3rd, John addresses Chris Soghoian as ‘Mr. Soghoian’. Would a person who had a close working relationship with this blogger address him as ‘Mr’? Isn’t this quite a detached introduction from somebody who does not have a strong working relationship with said blogger?
Mercurio is a Burson’s Director of Media with a background in politics, why is he involved in blogger relations? Surely this would have been the responsibility of a tech team or at least of somebody who would not approach Soghoian with a ‘Mr. Soghoian’.
While Mercurio offered the opportunity of an op-ed piece, why is it he and not somebody with a better working relationship offering Soghoian this opportunity?
Why is Burson using email to connect with bloggers, knowing full well that email correspondence can be leaked?
Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on. Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.
Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics. Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.
From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric. There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.
Facebook Credits came out of beta in January this year. Since it was launched in May 2009 in alpha it was believed that Credits would be used solely by people playing social games such as FarmVille and Mafia Wars. Virtual currency would give gamers that added experience when competing with their friends on Facebook. Those thinking that might have missed the whole point about Facebook having it’s own currency and the opportunity that it presents to companies and causes.
During the last two years Facebook has been rolling out a series of offerings such as Facebook Connect that have enabled users to log-in to third party sites with their Facebook account. This made the social networking site into an aggregator, allowing users to not just publish, but see what people within their network like online – based on websites that adopted Facebook Connect.
I came back from Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia and what I learnt is how quickly they started to trade on Facebook. E-commerce is being replaced by f-commerce. Businesses are realising than rather that spending money to get people to spend money on their sites, perhaps they should be investing to get the business of people on Facebook – cross the road to sell to your audience rather than get the audience to cross the road. Sounds simple, yet for many businesses a step too far.
Today you can buy airline tickets, clothes, tickets, just about anything. Business is slowly realising that Facebook is also a site through which you can sell.
Facebook Credits might in the future be another extension that can be implanted onto third party sites. The days though have passed when the cashier used to ask if “sir would be paying by cash or credit?” PayPal is now looking over its shoulders at the over 500 million account mammoth that is bearing down. “Will that be with PayPal or Facebook Credits sir?”
Who knows, perhaps one day we will all pull up a paywall that will charge Facebook Credits, which we can then redeem on other people’s sites. Crazy idea, but you heard it here first!
Hello. I'm Julio Romo. I'm a London-based independent PR, communications consultant and digital strategist. I am also a freelance journalist and trainer, providing insight and consultancy on how to secure better engagement through the changing media and digital landscape.
Twitter
@simonmacmichael I know Thierry is 34, but sure that he doesn't have white hair just yet! ;) Great picture!! 3 hours ago
How many groats for a herd? @ College Road Toll Gate http://t.co/5sWgwjki10 hours ago
England’s Football Association gave us a lesson this week on how not to secure change within FIFA to rid it of the ‘alleged’ <cough!> corruption.
News Of The World – The Tip Of The Privacy Iceberg
Thursday, July 7th, 2011UK national tabloid The News Of The World (#NOTW) is caught in the eye of a very public storm as revelations allege their involvement in the phone hacking of not just the murdered Milly Dowler, but the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and victims of the July 7th London bombing.
The esteemed Nicholas Tomalin, said that ‘the only qualities needed for real success in Journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.‘ He was not wrong.
It is this cunning that’s got The Guardian’s Nick Davies the story, as it’s served up insight into the activities that were allegedly common place at the News Of The World. But let’s not single them out exclusively. News outlets are in competition with one another and it would be odd to think that they were the only ones guilty. In fact, In the 2006 ‘What Price Privacy Now?’ report (below) the Information Commission highlighted that 305 journalists had been identified during Operation Motorman as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information. Have a look at the list and you’ll be surprised by some of the titles that were named and shamed. The various reports confirm two methods that journalists and private investigators use to get information, including, ‘through corruption, or more usually by some form of deception, generally known as ‘blagging’. Blaggers pretend to be someone they are not in order to wheedle out the information they are seeking.’
What Price Privacy Now Notw
Phone-hacking is really just the tip of the iceberg. Given that most people do not change the default password on their phone it is pretty easy to intercept voice messages. But, getting information on addresses, car registration requires deception and/or as the law describes, corruption.
The above report highlights the case of how in November 2006 Stephen and Sharon Anderson of St Ives in Cambridgeshire pleaded guilty to obtaining and selling information unlawfully whilst operating as private investigators. They used ‘blagging’ techniques to obtain and attempt to obtain personal information about individuals from a number of organisations including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, British Telecommunications plc and various banks.
So, while our eyes are currently on The News Of The World, the real question is, what about organisations that private investigators get their data from? How safe is your data – your bank details, phone numbers, your bills and tax information? And how ready are these businesses for the questions that must be asked? If you work PR in-house or agency-side are you ready for the reputation of your client or employer being questioned? And questions about how safe customers data is? And today, when we work online, how safe our our emails and our personal profiles?
News Of The World’s official line that it was all down to a ‘rogue reporter’ just did not wash from a public relations perspective. While it might have held back the criticism, it was like putting a finger in the dam.
Some newsrooms are aggressive places with boiler-room like cultures. You have to get the story. You don’t ask questions about the how, you just need to make sure that all the pieces fit together and that your legal team sign it off. All of course with the safety net of ‘Public Interest.’ But what is the definition of public interest? And why is the very quiet Press Complaint Commission so neutral? The PCC’s statement was just pointless.
Carter-Ruck Partner Magnus Boyd says, “public interest is always the justification used for such intrusion. It appears the lack of an adequate definition of public interest has allowed many spurious claims to the public interest.“ He says, “At the moment only Ofcom and the PCC offer working definitions of what is in the public interest and both are deliberately vaugue so as to retain sufficient flexibility and applicability.”
“Conversely, however, the lack of precision in the definition of ‘public interest’ allows the concept to be cited on ‘a rather tired and formulaic basis’ in many cases as Mr Justice Eady noted. What is interesting to the public may not neceassarily be in the public interest but we can no longer afford to seek to define it by ommission or by the adage, ‘you’ll know it when you see it’.” We need to define what the public interest is in a way that the general public can understand and relate to and which will have sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing circumstances without being all things to all men”
Talking about celebrity reporting Boyd goes on to explain, “Ironically, celebrity reporting usually requires the least invasive investigation techniques – there are usually people ready to talk off the record and perpetuate the gossip. What may well emerge from recent events is that hacking and blagging were used far more in the investigation of financial and corporate stories than readers may have realised as well as more general news items.”
Up an until The Guardian revealed that the phone of Milly Dowler had been hacked the story seemed distant from the public. It was an issue that just affected celebrities, people, as some might claim, that courted the media. But knowing to what lengths certain media outlets would go to has turned the tide.
A social media campaign by the public has been targeting not just readers of the paper but companies that advertise in the News of the World. Public revulsion is pushing this gossip paper into a tight corner. Companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, NPower, Virgin Holidays have cut their advertising from the title.
The Daily Telegraph’s Harry Wallop commented on Twitter, ‘NotW makes c£35m from ads + c£135m from sales. Few weeks of dropped ads won’t hit paper hard. Reader loyalty is what matters.’
The community is using Twitter and Facebook to spread their disgust and it’s having an impact, with subscribers to The Sun and other News International cancelling their subscriptions.
Social media can whip-up a storm and highlight public sentiment in real-time. Give the community and argument and it will express it’s view. But let’s remember, they are not the only guilty party and PR’s need to be ready for the questions about data, information and privacy that now need to be asked.
****UPDATE***
The Press Complain’s Commission yesterday released a statement that, well, didn’t say much apart from it being unhappy with the conduct of one of it’s members.
In Press Gazette today, Dominic Ponsford highlights how a Independent Enquiry might (we hope) focus on the role of the PCC.
Labour MP Alun Michael, himself a former journalist, speaking in an emergency debate about phone-hacking in the Commons yesterday, said: “The PCC is well meaning, but frankly it’s a joke, the public deserve better and the journalists deserve better. The PCC clearly has neither the will nor the ability to change things. What we need is an independent body, that is robust, effective, and has the powers to investigate and enforce. That would be a major step forward.
Tags: #notw, blagging, investigation, journalism, media, news, pr, privacy, public relations, publishing, reputation, social media, social networking
Posted in comment, news, reputation | No Comments »