So is anyone going to continue buying NOTW?

[needanewname]

Not that I ever really got it (holidays maybe for a bot of a laugh) but no more.

I wasn;t bothered too much by the celebs (though can see why they were obviously!) but to do that, its beyond disgusting.

But wiltl anything actually happen, or will they just repeat the usual lessons will be learnt shit

hate to say it but to an extent i agree with xenia. because much of the content is online, media organisations are able to gain greater insight into what readers actually read. in fact some media organisations base decisions on bonuses, pay rises etc on how many clicks the journalist's stories receive. so they monitor what people click on - and provide more of the same. the stories you see in the "most read/most shared" lists - we click on salacious stories, that's what the journalists churn out. we bypass stories on global health, security, finance - and the editors take it that we don't really care so what's the point on expending effort on those stories.

i also agree that RM sees business as a game of chess and ultimately he would not be willing to sacrifice one of his longest held pieces - NotW - unless he was going to gain substantially more than he lost.

Of course Brooks has done something wrong.She presided over wholesale illegal activity.She is culpable.

tethers please may i plagiarise your last post as my FB status??!

And she's on tape as having said she paid police. On tape admitting to breaking the law.

She must be teflon-coated.

Don't think it took till the digital age for editors to work out that sex sells, teej.

And yes of course the people providing the market for this info have some level of (moral) culpability - but it's a different order of magnitude from the moral and legal culpability of carrying out misdeeds to feed and profit from that market. Drug-users and international drug-trafficking businesses spring to mind.

NOTW was not exactly a hapless victim unable to say no to its evil readership.

And nor - lest we take our eye off the ball here - is any other paper.

Brooks is not wrong. Anyway no doubt the courts will decide but just because things happen under your watch (if they did) that does not always mean a breach of the law by the director of their duties etc or whatever her role is. However I am sure people find things much easier to understand if they think there uis one big bad wolf. There isn't. There are vacuuous women who read scandal (ie a huge load of mumsnet air heads who cause these stories and the methods used to generate them to occur), there are investigators who try mostly to keep within the law, there are corrupt policemen and there are many papers who did the same. A vast load of people are respsonible but people will always prefer the one Big Bad Wolf because it is simpler.

I haven't seen or heard anyone think Brooks is the one 'big bad wolf.' It's a culture of hacking that she definitely must have known about and is thus very responsible for though.

I would consider myself responsible if it was discovered that over several years my staff had been engaged on illegal activity. Responsible for not having known what the budget payments to a private investigator were actually FOR, responsible , as Editir, for not asking where deeply personal information actually came from...come on, it can't all have occurred while she was on holiday, unlesss it was an extremely long holiday!

And OF COURSE many more people than her are guilty and responsible. They should all be discovered, identified and face the proper justice system process.

But it is outrageous that the current - hopefully innocent - editor and staff should lose jobs while those facing serious allegations keep theirs. How does she sleep at night?

And while readers may well be guilty of nosey cleb-struck vacuousness, that is not a criminal act, so i don't know how you can begin to compare readers' responsibility with Rebekah Brokks'. And even if you are talking morally if they didn't KNOW how info was being gained, it doesn't even approach the level of responsibility that people who buy rugs known to have been produced by children in India, for example.

Xenia, in 2003 RB admitted to a Select Committee that payments for information had been made to police!!!

I don't see any stories about sales of The Sun being hit. Have I missed them? Do the public see a marked difference between The Sun and its Sunday version NOTW? Or, as I fear, are many tabloid readers too addicted to really quit? It reminds me of when the weeping Diana millions conspicuously failed to stop buying the tabloids that clearly played a part in the death of their icon.

She was either party to the goings on and sanctioned them (tacitly or otherwise) or she was gullible and incompetent in not noticing it was happening. Either way she is at lest partially responsible and not a suitable person to be leading an investigation.

Yes! Xenia, Yes! It's our fault this has happened. Even if we don't read the papers concerned. Even if we've just passed them and inhaled!

a huge load of mumsnet air heads who cause these stories and the methods used to generate them to occur

MNers cause the stories!!! blimey. how do we do that exactly?

Some interesting stuff on Twitter if it's genuine.

That account isnt definitely - but others - who have named accounts are....

Now Show Radio 4 SPOT ON

I am so glad Xenia has put us right. Silly me, I was thinking it was because serious (and ethical) journalism has frequently been stifled by greedy major shareholders, as it's too expensive to support in these times when only the financial bottom line seems to matter. But then what do I know? I only worked for Time Warner through the world's most financially disastrous media merger.

What makes me laugh the most is that Private Eye - who have been on to this for the last ten years - were out of sync

Oi Xenia
You are SO full of carp
We are surfing the wave
and you are the manky bit of wood on the back

I think people are starting to make the link between the NOTW and it's sister papers. Renault have pulled out of all advertising with NI and lots of charities are refusing the free ads.

Agree wannabe - it's been going on for years, that's how they get their stories, but there is a line and they crossed it. I never bought the NOTW but I like The Times - and will probably still buy it.

Not bothered about Murdoch and BskyB - that will just make him even richer, it's the papers that give him power - a few stories can sway public opinion and win or lose elections.

I said those who commit crimes should be prosecuted but that does not always mean everyone connected to a company is morally or legally liable. Of course the one thing we can never forgive Ms Wade is changing her name on marriage.

Xenia you NOTW warrior.....Rebekah is up to her neck in it as are the Murdochs. I don't believe for a second that the hundreds of thousands paid out as bribes came out of the tea/coffee petty cash tin - it had to be sanctioned at the top

Anyway,Murdoch is here to save the lads neck since the Americans don't take too kindly at all to white collar crime and could make a play for his young protegie. Only thing is.....he did pay to make it go away didn't he? It's a bit different to the corrupt UK where it can get you a nice job in 10 Downing Street for being ever so dodgy - unbelievable!!!!!!

Also they aren't just after BskyB, apparently "Sky is bidding to run a government-funded international TV service currently operated by ABC."
This would give them access to something like 44 countries.....much bigger fish to fry.

On the other hand I do feel sorry for some of the reporters at the NOTW, those that play the game straight. Yes they too will have families and dependants and many of us here know what redundancy is. For those people, I am sorry you are in this position and hope you get something good soon.

As for what RB said is yet to come out being even worse, it makes me shudder.I hate to think of what more pain and distress it will call.

It was Murdoch and co that closed down NOTW, why aren't the sacked hacks blaming him instead of the Guardian and the BBC? I have no sympathy for them if they can't see why their newspaper needed to be put down.

Because the parent company is American they can be prosecuted in the US for the police bribes they paid over here - I will try to find a link.

\link{http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8627525/James-Murdoch-could-face-corporate-legal-charges-in-US-and-UK-over-News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-scandal.html\Telegraph}

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/ed-miliband-broken-omerta-old-monster\Guardian}

'Meanwhile, US law may enter the fray. A former Labour cabinet minister has alerted attention to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes an American company (News Corp) liable for colossal fines if any employee bribes a foreign official (the Met police) even if no one at head office knew. What's more, any whistleblower inside the company (sacked News of the World reporters), stands to win a percentage of that fine if they report acts of bribery.'

Mrs Brooks has done something very wrong. She made a total error of leadership. A leader is responsible for the corporate governance standards of the organisation. Under her leadership, criminal activity flourished. This is a huge failing - if she was not complicit, then she was incompetent.